You are on page 1of 40

Tuesday,

June 24, 2003

Part II

Department of
Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration

49 CFR Part 571


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Child Restraint Systems; Final Rule

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37620 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., test add-on child restraint systems; (b) a
SW., Washington, DC 20590. sled pulse that provides a wider test
National Highway Traffic Safety SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: corridor; (c) improved child test
Administration dummies; and (d) expanded
Table of Contents
applicability to child restraint systems
49 CFR Part 571 I. Executive Summary recommended for use by children
II. Background weighing up to 65 pounds. This action
[Docket No. NHTSA–03–15351] III. The TREAD Act
IV. Responsible Regulation
strengthens the technical underpinnings
RIN 2127–AI34 of the standard and ensures that a firmer
V. Response to the TREAD Act
a. NPRM For This Final Rule foundation is laid for possible technical
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety improvements in the future. Child
b. ANPRM On Side Impact Protection
Standards; Child Restraint Systems c. TREAD Programs on Labeling and restraints will be tested using the most
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Consumer Information advanced test dummies available today
Safety Administration (NHTSA), VI. Post-NPRM Testing and tested to conditions representing
VII. Summary of Comments on the NPRM current model vehicles. This final rule
Department of Transportation.
a. General Comments on the Proposals does not adopt the scaled injury criteria
ACTION: Final rule. b. Updated Bench Seat
c. Crash Pulse
developed for the occupant protection
SUMMARY: This document makes a d. New Dummies standard (FMVSS No. 208), except that
number of revisions to the Federal e. Application of the Standard the time interval used to calculate the
safety standard for child restraint f. Injury Criteria head injury criterion is amended from
systems, including amendments for VIII. Amendments an unlimited time interval to 36
incorporating improved test dummies a. Updated Bench Seat milliseconds.
and updated procedures used to test 1. Post-NPRM Test Program This final rule fulfills the mandate in
child restraints and extension of the i. Seat Back Rotation the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
ii. HIC Measurements Accountability and Documentation Act
standard to apply it to child restraints
iii. Chest Acceleration (the TREAD Act) (November 1, 2000,
recommended for use by children up to iv. Head Excursion
65 pounds (30 kilograms). This action v. Knee Excursion Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800) to
strengthens the technical underpinnings vi. Summary of PAX Testing initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of
of the standard and ensures that a firmer 2. Response to Comments improving the safety of child restraints.1
foundation is laid for possible technical i. Seat Back and Cushion Angles Section 14(a) of the TREAD Act
improvements in the future. Child ii. Belt Systems On The Standard Seat mandated that the agency ‘‘initiate a
restraints will be tested using the most Assembly rulemaking for the purpose of
advanced test dummies available today iii. Fixed Seat Back improving the safety of child restraints,
iv. Future Work including minimizing head injuries
and tested to conditions representing b. Crash Pulse
current model vehicles. This final rule from side impact collisions.’’ Section
1. On Widening The Corridor
fulfills the mandate of the 14(b) identified specific elements that
2. Increase Pulse Severity
Transportation Recall Enhancement, 3. Decrease Pulse Severity the agency must consider in its
Accountability and Documentation Act c. New Dummies rulemaking. The Act gave the agency
of 2000 that the agency undertake 1. Post-NPRM Test Program substantial discretion over the decision
rulemaking on the safety of child i. Tests With The 3-Year-Old Dummies whether to issue a final rule on the
restraints. ii. Tests With The 6-Year-Old Dummies specific elements. Section 14(c)
2. Commenters Generally Supportive specified that if the agency does not
DATES: The amendments made in this i. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Dummy incorporate any element described in
rule are effective December 22, 2003. ii. Weighted 6-Year-Old Dummy § 14(b) in a final rule, the agency shall
The incorporation by reference of 3. Specific Issues Relating To The Use Of explain in a report to Congress the
certain publications listed in the rule is The New Dummies In Standard No. 213
reasons for not incorporating the
approved by the Director of the Federal i. Seat Back Height Requirement
ii. Padding Requirement element in a final rule.
Register as of December 22, 2003. If you In response to Section 14, the agency
d. Application of the Standard
wish to petition for reconsideration of examined possible ways of revising and
e. Injury Criteria
this rule, your petition must be received 1. Post-NPRM Testing updating its child restraint standard.
by August 8, 2003. i. JPMA Today’s final rule is substantially based
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for ii. NHTSA Series I and II on a combination of pre- and post-
reconsideration of this rule, you should iii. Results of JPMA and NHTSA Series I TREAD Act agency activities, including
refer in your petition to the docket and II research studies of child restraints and
number of this document and submit iv. NHTSA Series III dummies by NHTSA following issuance
your petition to: Administrator, Room 2. Comments and Conclusions of the NPRM. This final rule was also
i. Head Injury Criterion (HIC)
5220, National Highway Traffic Safety ii. Chest Injury Criteria
developed based on extensive
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., iii. Neck information provided by comments to
Washington, DC 20590. f. Leadtime the NPRM. Several factors relating to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For IX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses child restraint performance and use in
non-legal issues, you may call Mike this country guided the agency in its
I. Executive Summary decision-making on this rulemaking, in
Huntley of the NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, at 202–366– This document makes a number of addition to the statutory mandates
0029. revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 1 It also follows up on the agency’s announcement

Fujita of the NHTSA Office of Chief ‘‘Child Restraint Systems’’ (49 CFR in its November 2000 Draft Child Restraint Systems
Safety Plan (Docket NHTSA–7938) that the agency
Counsel, at 202–366–2992. 571.213). The revisions incorporate four will be undertaking rulemaking on these and other
You may send mail to both of these elements into the standard: (a) An elements of Standard No. 213 (65 FR 70687;
officials at the National Highway Traffic updated bench seat used to dynamically November 27, 2000).

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37621

governing the agency’s rulemaking does not reduce the stringency of the generally. For example, there is little
activities. These factors are outlined in test, and makes it easier to conduct available data on neck injury in children
Section IV of this preamble. compliance tests at speeds closer to 30 involved in motor vehicle crashes.
The agency also issued an advance mph. Together, these limitations have made it
notice of proposed rulemaking This document enhances the use of difficult to assess and compare the
(ANPRM) published concurrently with test dummies in the evaluation of child benefits and costs of this rulemaking.
the NPRM, in which comments were restraints under Standard No. 213. The agency does not believe that
sought on the agency’s work on NHTSA replaces most of the existing updating the seat assembly and revising
developing a possible side impact dummies with the new 12-month-old the crash pulse would affect dummy
protection standard for child restraint Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction performance to an extent that benefits
systems. This advanced notice is (CRABI) dummy, and the state-of-the art would accrue from such changes. The
discussed in Section V of today’s Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old dummies. amendment of FMVSS No. 213
preamble. The ANPRM announced that NHTSA also incorporates a weighted 6- incorporating use of the new dummies
the agency had conducted extensive year-old dummy (i.e., a Hybrid III 6- in compliance tests, including testing
testing and analysis over the year year-old dummy to which weights have with a weighted 6-year-old dummy,
proceeding the ANPRM to develop a been added) to test the structural would result in a one-time cost of $1.68
possible side impact protection standard integrity of child restraints million for manufacturers to purchase
for children in child restraints but recommended for use by children the new test dummies and $1.39 to
acknowledged that there are many weighing 50 to 65 lb. Incorporation of $3.44 million to certify existing child
unknowns. The agency sought comment the weighted, 62 lb, dummy is viewed restraints to the new dummies and test
on the suitability of the test procedures as an interim measure until such time requirements. The annual long-term
it was considering, on appropriate as the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy costs are estimated to be $31,200 to test
injury criteria for children in side becomes available. Because the new models of booster seats (including
impacts, on cost beneficial weighted dummy will be available for built-in restraints) with a weighted 6-
countermeasures, and on other issues. use in dynamic testing of child year-old dummy. We believe that use of
Additionally, after the ANPRM was restraints for older children, this final the new dummies, in itself, would not
published the agency evaluated possible rule extends the application of FMVSS necessitate redesign of child restraints.
mitigation concepts, such as adding No. 213 to child restraint systems for
II. Background
padding material to the child restraint children who weigh 65 lb or less.
system. After reviewing the comments The agency has decided against Of the 31,910 passenger vehicle
and the results of its post-ANPRM adopting the scaled injury criteria occupants killed in 2001, 1,003 were
study, the agency has decided that the developed in the context of the children ages 0 through 10 years old.
level and amount of effort needed to advanced air bag rulemaking of FMVSS Four hundred ninety-seven (497) of
further develop and validate a side No. 208. The agency was unable to these were less than 5 years old. The
impact component for incorporation confirm the existence of a safety failure to use occupant restraints is a
into FMVSS No. 213 far exceeds what problem that the scaled injury limits of significant factor in most fatalities
could be accomplished within the time FMVSS No. 208 would remedy. resulting from motor vehicle crashes for
constraints of the TREAD Act. While an Relatedly, not enough is known about both adults and children. Of the 31,910
NPRM is not feasible at this time, what modifications to child restraints passenger vehicle occupants killed in
NHTSA’s research into improved side could be made for the restraints to meet 2001, over half (55 percent) were
impact protection requirements for the proposed injury limits. In balancing unrestrained. Forty-six (46) percent of
child restraints will continue as an the effects of meeting the scaled injury the 1,003 child occupant fatalities, ages
ongoing agency program. criteria against the possible impacts on 0 through 10 years old, were
The updates to the seat assembly are the price of restraints, the agency unrestrained. For child occupants less
based on studies that NHTSA contracted determined that the scaled injury limits than 5 years old, 45 percent of the 497
to have done in response to the TREAD should not be added to FMVSS No. 213 fatalities were unrestrained.2 In 2001,
Act. This final rule makes the following at this time. 202 child occupants under 5 years of
changes: the seat bottom cushion angle NHTSA has examined the benefits age were killed while restrained in child
is increased from 8 degrees off and costs of these amendments, wishing restraints, and another 32,000 were
horizontal to 15 degrees; the seat back to adopt only those amendments that injured.
cushion angle is increased from 15 contribute to improved safety, and NHTSA developed three strategies for
degrees off the vertical to 20 ± 1 degrees; mindful of the principles for regulatory reducing the number of children killed
the spacing between the anchors of the decisionmaking set forth in Executive and injured in motor vehicle crashes in
lap belt is increased from 222 Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and this country. (See Planning Document,
millimeters (mm) to 400 mm in the Review. Its efforts to do so, however, 65 FR 70687; November 27, 2000;
center seating position and from 356 have been limited by several factors. Docket NHTSA 7938.) The first of these
mm to 472 mm in the outboard seating One is the limited time allowed by the was a strategy designed to increase
positions; and the seat back of the seat schedule specified in the TREAD Act for restraint use among all children and to
assembly is changed, from a flexible seat initiating and completing this ensure that the appropriate restraint
back to one that is fixed, to represent a rulemaking. That has limited the systems are used correctly. The agency
typical rear seat in a passenger car. amount and variety of information that
2 Of the 2,787,000 passenger vehicle occupants
The changes to the sled pulse are the agency could obtain and testing that
injured in crashes in 2001, only 12 percent
based on studies conducted in response the agency could conduct to examine (324,000) were reported as unrestrained. The rates
to the TREAD Act. The test corridor is the efficacy of possible countermeasures are about the same for child occupants. For children
widened to make it easier for more test under consideration and the effects of ages 0–10 years old, an estimated 147,000 were
facilities to reproduce. The wider the various proposed amendments on injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2001, and
12 percent (18,000) of these children were
corridor extends the pulse from 80 child restraint performance. The other is unrestrained. Of the 59,000 child occupants less
milliseconds (ms) to approximately 90 the lack of specific accident data on than 5 years of age who were injured, 11 percent
ms in duration. The expanded corridor children in motor vehicle crashes (6,000) were unrestrained.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37622 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

estimated that if all children ages 0–4 included in NHTSA’s Planning requirements to be dynamically tested
years old were restrained in child Document as part of the strategy for in 3-point lap and shoulder belts;
restraint systems, 173 lives could have improving the safety of child restraints. (8) Whether to apply scaled injury
been saved in 1998. Additional studies Thus, Section 14 reaffirmed the criteria performance levels, including
have shown that as many as 68 importance of the agency’s planned neck injury, developed for Federal
additional deaths to children ages 0–6 programs for amending Standard No. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208
years old could be prevented each year 213. Nonetheless, the TREAD Act had to child restraints and booster seats
by eliminating misuse of child very tight deadlines for initiating and covered by in [sic] Federal Motor
restraints. The agency conducts national completing the rulemaking which also Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213; and
campaigns to educate the public about defined for the agency the actions it (9) Whether to include [a] child
the importance of buckling children into could take and complete within those restraint in each vehicle crash tested
child restraint systems. deadlines. under the New Car Assessment
The second strategy was to improve Program.
existing requirements for the III. The TREAD Act (c) Report to Congress. If the Secretary
performance and testing of child Section 14 of the TREAD Act directed does not incorporate any element
restraint systems. Since NHTSA first NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for the described in subsection (b) in the final
began regulating child safety seats in purpose of improving the safety of child rule, the Secretary shall explain, in a
1971, the agency has made numerous restraints by November 1, 2001, and to report to the Senate Committee on
improvements to the original Federal complete it by issuing a final rule or Commerce, Science, and Transportation
safety standard. On a frequent basis, the taking other action by November 1, and the House of Representatives
agency has issued planning documents 2002. The relevant provisions in Section Committee on Commerce submitted
or has held public meetings on child 14 are as follows: within 30 days after issuing the final
passenger safety issues at the attention (a) In General. Not later than 12 rule, specifically why the Secretary did
of the agency and the agency’s long months after the date of enactment of not incorporate any such element in the
view of possible regulatory actions that this Act, the Secretary of Transportation final rule.
might be taken in response. The public shall initiate a rulemaking for the (d) Completion. Notwithstanding any
is invited to comment on the agency’s purpose of improving the safety of child other provision of law, the Secretary
plans. The November 2000 Planning restraints, including minimizing head shall complete the rulemaking required
Document announced that the agency injuries from side impact collisions. by subsection (a) not later than 24
planned to undertake rulemaking to (b) Elements for Consideration. In the months after the date of the enactment
update the bench seat and belt geometry rulemaking required by subsection (a), of this Act.
used in Standard No. 213’s compliance the Secretary shall consider— IV. Responsible Regulation
test, revise the crash pulse used in the (1) Whether to require more
test, incorporate state-of-the art infant, comprehensive tests for child restraints The agency developed its proposed
3-year-old and 6-year-old crash test than the current Federal motor vehicle and final rules responding to the
dummies and child-specific injury safety standards requires, including the TREAD Act while bearing in mind and
criteria, and continue efforts working use of dynamic tests that— in some cases, balancing, several
with the Society of Automotive (A) Replicate an array of crash compelling principles and
Engineers in developing a 10-year-old conditions, such as side-impact crashes considerations that generally come to
child test dummy. The plan also stated and rear-impact crashes; and the forefront in rulemaking in this area.
that the agency would conduct research (B) Reflect the designs of passenger These are discussed below.
into possible side impact test motor vehicles as of the date of (a) When used, child restraints are
requirements for child restraints and enactment of this Act; highly effective in reducing the
developing a test dummy appropriate (2) Whether to require the use of likelihood of death and or serious injury
for use in side impact tests. In addition, anthropomorphic test devices that— in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA
the plan announced that NHTSA would (A) Represent a greater range of sizes estimates (‘‘Revised Estimates of Child
begin testing child restraints in full of children including the need to Restraint Effectiveness,’’ Hertz, 1996)
frontal and side impact vehicle crash require the use of an anthropomorphic that for children less than one-year-old,
tests under the agency’s New Car test device that is representative of a a child restraint can reduce the risk of
Assessment Program. ten-year-old child; and fatality by 71 percent when used in a
The third strategy called for improved (B) Are Hybrid III anthropomorphic passenger car and by 58 percent when
mechanisms for getting safety test devices; used in a pickup truck, van, or sport
information to consumers, to increase (3) Whether to require improved utility vehicle (light truck). Child
the likelihood that child restraints protection from head injuries in side- restraint effectiveness for children
would be purchased and correctly used. impact and rear-impact crashes; between the ages 1 to 4 years old is 54
The agency sought to improve the (4) How to provide consumer percent in passenger cars and 59 percent
information it provided to consumers, information on the physical in light trucks. The failure to use
both on the performance and proper use compatibility of child restraints and occupant restraints is a significant factor
of child restraint systems, as well as on vehicle seats on a model-by-model in most fatalities resulting from motor
defect investigations and safety recalls. basis; vehicle crashes. For child occupants
In November 2000, the TREAD Act (5) Whether to prescribe clearer and less than 5 years old, 45 percent of the
was enacted. Section 14 of the TREAD simpler labels and instructions required 497 fatalities in 2001 were unrestrained.
Act directed NHTSA to initiate a to be placed on child restraints; Over the past decade, the agency has
rulemaking for the purpose of (6) Whether to amend Federal Motor sought to increase use of vehicle seat
improving the safety of child restraints Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 belt and child restraint systems. NHTSA
and included specific elements, listed CFR 571.213) to cover restraints for conducts national campaigns to educate
below, that the agency had to consider children weighing up to 80 pounds; the public about the importance of
as part of the rulemaking. Most of the (7) Whether to establish booster seat buckling children into child restraint
elements for consideration had been performance and structural integrity systems, supports efforts by state and

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37623

local organizations that wish to of the TREAD Act and so was not part flexible seat back to one that is fixed, to
establish child safety seat fitting stations of the rulemaking, notwithstanding its represent a typical rear seat in a
(locations within a community where inclusion as an element for passenger car.
parents and caregivers can learn how to consideration in NHTSA’s Planning The agency also proposed to widen
install and properly use child Document and in Section 14 of the the corridor of the sled pulse to make
restraints), and works with partners to TREAD Act. Development of a seat it easier for more test facilities to
train educators that can teach the public cushion with different stiffness reproduce. The wider corridor extends
about using child restraints. If more characteristics for the test seat assembly the pulse from 80 milliseconds (ms) to
child restraints were used, children’s could not be completed and analyzed in approximately 90 ms in duration. The
lives would certainly be saved in time to be included in this rulemaking. agency believed that the expanded
significant numbers. Development of a side impact test corridor would not reduce the
If child restraints were made more procedure, injury criteria, and cost- stringency of the test, and would also
effective, some lives could also possibly effective countermeasures also could make it easier to conduct compliance
be saved. However, in making not be completed within the TREAD Act tests at speeds closer to 30 mph.
regulatory decisions on possible rulemaking schedule. Work is The NPRM proposed two initiatives
enhancements, the agency must bear in continuing in some of these areas. While toward enhancing the use of test
mind the consumer acceptance of cost ideally the agency would have wanted dummies in the evaluation of child
increases to an already highly-effective to address all related aspects of the restraints under Standard No. 213.
item of safety equipment. Any standard, what could be accomplished NHTSA proposed to replace some of the
enhancement that would significantly in the near term was addressed and existing dummies with the new 12-
raise the price of the restraints could what could not but should will be month-old Child Restraint Air Bag
potentially have an adverse effect on the pursued in the future. Interaction (CRABI) dummy, and the
sales of this voluntarily-purchased state-of-the art Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-
equipment. The net effect on safety V. Response to the TREAD Act old dummies. NHTSA also proposed
could be negative if the effect of sales Bearing in mind the principles and testing child restraints for older children
losses exceeds the benefit of the considerations discussed in the with a weighted 6-year-old dummy (i.e.,
improved performance of the restraints previous section, the agency initiated a Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy to which
that are purchased. Thus, to maximize several actions following enactment of weights have been added). The total
the total safety benefits of its efforts to the TREAD Act. These are summarized weight of the dummy would be 62 lb.
extend and upgrade its restraint below. The agency sought to use the weighted
requirements, the agency must balance dummy as an interim measure to test
a. NPRM for This Final Rule
those improvements against impacts on child restraints that are recommended
the price of restraints. The agency must On May 1, 2002 (67 FR 21806, docket for children weighing 50 to 65 lb, until
also consider the effects of improved 11707), the agency published a notice of such time as a Hybrid III 10-year-old
performance on the ease of using child proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing dummy now in development becomes
restraints. If the use of child restraints to incorporate five elements into the available.
becomes overly complex, the twin standard: (a) An updated bench seat The NPRM proposed to extend
problems of misuse and nonuse of child used to dynamically test add-on child Standard No. 213 to apply to child
restraints could be exacerbated. restraint systems; (b) a sled pulse that restraint systems for children who
(b) Estimating the net effect on safety provides a wider test corridor; (c) weigh 65 lb or less. Restraints
of this rulemaking, consistent with the improved child test dummies; (d) recommended for children weighing 50
principles for regulatory expanded applicability to child restraint to 65 lb would be tested with the
decisionmaking set forth in Executive systems recommended for use by weighted 6-year-old dummy.
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and children weighing up to 65 pounds; and The proposal to use the new and
Review, was limited by several factors. (e) new or revised injury criteria to scaled injury criteria of Standard No.
One was the lack of specific accident assess the dynamic performance of child 208 was based on research that the
data on children in motor vehicle restraints. The 60-day comment period agency had done in support of the
crashes generally. Second, the limited provided by the NPRM on the proposals agency’s May 2000 final rule on
time allowed by the schedule specified was extended an additional 30 days in advanced air bag technology, which
in the TREAD Act for initiating and response to petitions from the Juvenile amended Standard No. 208 by, among
completing this rulemaking limited the Products Manufacturers Association and other things, adjusting the criteria and
amount and variety of information that ARCCA, Inc. 67 FR 44416; July 2, 2002. performance limits to account for motor
the agency could obtain and testing that The proposed updates to the seat vehicle injury risks faced by different
the agency could conduct to examine assembly were based on studies that size occupants (65 FR 30680; May 12,
the efficacy of possible countermeasures NHTSA contracted to have done in 2000), as well as on NCAP and sled
and the effects of various proposed response to the TREAD Act. The NPRM testing done in response to the TREAD
amendments on child restraint proposed the following changes: the seat Act. The NPRM proposed to adopt the
performance. Together, these limitations bottom cushion angle would be scaled Head Injury Criterion (HIC) limits
made it difficult to assess and compare increased from 8 degrees off horizontal from the Standard No. 208 rulemaking
the benefits and costs of this to 15 degrees; the seat back cushion into Standard No. 213, as well as the
rulemaking. angle would be increased from 15 chest deflection and acceleration limits.
(c) The rulemaking schedule imposed degrees off the vertical to 22 degrees; the The Nij neck criterion was also
by the TREAD Act also limited the spacing between the anchors of the lap proposed to be added to Standard No.
rulemaking to elements that could be belt would be increased from 222 213, but without the limits on axial
completed within the statutory millimeters (mm) to 392 mm in the force.
schedule. The development of an center seating position and from 356 NHTSA estimated that the proposal to
anthropomorphic test device mm to 472 mm in the outboard seating use the new and scaled injury criteria of
representing a 10-year-old child could positions; and the seat back of the seat Standard No. 208 would prevent an
not be completed within the timeframe assembly would be changed, from a estimated 3–5 fatalities and 5 MAIS 2–

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37624 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

5 non-fatal injuries for children ages 0– The agency received approximately other object); (b) potential
1 annually. In addition, the proposal 17 comments on the ANPRM. countermeasures for side impact
would save 1 fatality and mitigate 1 Commenters expressed qualified intrusion have not been developed; and
MAIS 2–5 injury in the 4- to 6-year-old support for NHTSA’s efforts to enhance (c) there is not a consensus on an
age group annually. The agency did not child passenger protection in side appropriate child test dummy and
believe that updating the seat assembly impact crashes, but were concerned associated injury criteria for side impact
and revising the crash pulse would about the uncertainties with respect to testing. There was widespread support
affect dummy performance to an extent the three areas highlighted above. A for NHTSA to monitor the progress of
that benefits would accrue from such number of commenters believed that a the International Standards
changes. dynamic test should account for some Organization (ISO) to develop a
NHTSA did not identify degree of vehicle intrusion into the harmonized side impact test procedure.
countermeasures to improve child occupant compartment, which overall A preliminary draft of an ISO side
restraint performance in frontal tests the tests that the agency had been impact test procedure includes
that would allow child restraint considering did not. specifications for an intruding door
manufacturers to meet the proposed Following publication of the ANPRM, member. However, no dummies are
neck injury criterion. Consequently, the the agency began a program of child available at the present time whose
agency was unable to estimate the costs restraint systems side impact testing construction is designed for side impact
of such countermeasures. Comments that continues today, for completion in validation. Given the lack of an
were requested on possible fall 2003. Some of the side impact approved test device, and corresponding
countermeasures and their costs. The testing in which the agency is engaged injury criteria, a final version of an ISO
agency believed that the proposal to use is as follows: test procedure is not expected in the
new dummies in compliance tests, —Initial evaluation of mitigation near future.
including testing with a weighted 6- concepts, such as adding padding The level and amount of effort needed
year-old dummy, could result in material to the child restraint system to further develop and validate the ISO
increased testing costs for (CRS), modifying the size of the side side impact test procedure far exceeds
manufacturers that want to certify their wings of the CRS, effect of rigid lower what could be accomplished within the
restraints using the tests that NHTSA anchorages and additional tethering of time constraints of the TREAD Act.
will use in compliance testing. NHTSA the CRS for rear-facing CRS in a side While an NPRM is not feasible at this
estimated that use of the new dummies impact. time, NHTSA’s research into improved
and other changes to the test procedure —Initial evaluation of mitigation side impact protection requirements for
would add testing costs of $2.72 concepts, such as adding padding child restraints will continue as an
million. The agency believed that those material to the child restraint, ongoing agency program.
changes would not result in redesign of modifying the size of the side wings c. TREAD Programs on Labeling and
child restraints. of the CRS, rigid lower anchorages Consumer Information
b. ANPRM On Side Impact Protection and additional tethering of the CRS Two other regulatory initiatives on
On May 1, 2002, concurrent with the for forward-facing CRS in a side child restraint systems were completed
publication of the NPRM and in further impact. in response to Section 14 of the TREAD
response to section 14(b) of the TREAD If the results from the above two Act. Pursuant to § 14(b)(5) of the Act,
Act, NHTSA issued an advance notice evaluations are successful in reducing the agency issued a final rule on
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) injury levels, NHTSA will consider October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61523, Docket
seeking public comments on the conducting a test series to determine if 10916) on Standard No. 213’s labeling
agency’s work on developing near-term the stiffer shoulder/upper arm area of and owner’s manual requirements. The
a possible side impact protection the HIII 3-year-old dummy influences final rule amends the format, location,
standard for child restraint systems. 67 head/neck performance, as compared to and content of some of Standard No.
FR 21836, May 1, 2002; Docket No. 02– the TNO Q3 dummy developed by a 213’s labeling requirements to make the
12151. European test dummy manufacturer. labels and instructions clearer and
The ANPRM primarily addressed side Upon further consideration of the simpler.
impact protection for children in child comments on the ANPRM and the In addition, pursuant to § 14(g) of the
restraints in the following areas: (a) agency’s side impact test program, we Act, NHTSA published a final rule
Determination of child injury have decided not to issue an NPRM and establishing an ease-of-use child
mechanisms in side impacts, and crash final rule on side and rear impact restraint ratings program on November
characteristics associated with serious protection at this time and thus are 2, 2002 (see 67 FR 67491; November 5,
and fatal injuries to children in child withdrawing the action. A full 2002, Docket 01–10053). The ratings
restraints; (b) development of test explanation of the agency’s reasons for program constituted the first step
procedures, a suitable test dummy and this decision is set forth in a report to toward enhancing the safety of children
appropriate injury criteria; and (c) Congress that NHTSA has issued through a consumer information
identification of cost beneficial concurrently with today’s final rule.3 To program. The program established no
countermeasures. Uncertainties in these summarize, the agency found that for binding obligation on any manufacturer.
areas, together with the statutory side crashes: (a) Data are not widely Rather, it will inform consumers about
schedule for this rulemaking, made it available as to how children are being the features of child restraints that make
difficult for the agency to assess and injured and killed in side impacts (e.g., child restraints easier to use, and will
make judgments on the benefits and to what degree injuries are caused by evaluate each child restraint on those
costs of a rulemaking on side impact intrusion of an impacting vehicle or features.
protection. The ANPRM also requested NHTSA is also continuing an
3 The report is issued in response to subsection
comments on the appropriateness of evaluation of whether to establish two
14(c) of the TREAD Act, which directs NHTSA to
proposing to incorporate a rear impact explain in a report to Congress why the agency did
complementary consumer information
test procedure into FMVSS No. 213 for not incorporate any element described in programs. The first would be based on
rear-facing child restraint systems. subsection 14(b) in a final rule. child restraint dynamic performance.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37625

The second would involve expanding safety.4 However, many underscored restraints will increase ‘‘because of
the agency’s New Car Assessment concerns that the rulemaking increased testing costs and most likely
Program to include consumer undertaken by the agency in response to increased parts or the use of more
information on how vehicles do in the TREAD Act could possibly advanced technology that will enable
protecting child occupants. The agency indirectly cause a reduction in child the restraints to meet new
will be conducting two pilot programs passenger safety, particularly with requirements.’’ The commenter was
in these areas to assess how the agency respect to applying new (neck loading, concerned that, as the child restraint
should proceed. These programs are chest deflection) and revised (scaled costs rise, the rates of child restraint use
described in detail in a Response to HIC and chest acceleration limits) injury may fall.
Comments, Notice of Final Decision criteria used to assess the dynamic This concern was echoed by other
accompanying the November 5, 2002 performance of child restraints. commenters. TraumaLink at the
final rule (67 FR 67448; Docket 01– Commenters expressing these concerns Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
10053–67). were diverse. The JPMA, representing stated that data collected through its
child restraint manufacturers Britax, ‘‘Partners for Child Passenger Safety’’
VI. Post-NPRM Testing Cosco, Evenflo, Graco/Century, and Peg study indicate that children in child
Perego, believed that NHTSA should be restraints do extremely well in all types
The agency conducted several concerned about ‘‘unintended of crashes. ‘‘The extremely low injury
research projects since publication of consequences of multiple, unevaluated rate in child restraints indicates that
the NPRM in an effort to assess whether changes to 213, as well as the adverse despite substantial misuse, these
the proposed changes would reduce the consequences of substantial cost devices perform exceedingly well across
safety currently afforded by child increases.’’ In a separate comment on the range of crash severities and
restraints. NHTSA conducted three test the NPRM, Evenflo expressed directions of impact * * * It is
projects, which are fully discussed in opposition to ‘‘revisions that do not important to consider the unintended
sections VIII.a.1, VIII.c.1, and VIII.e.1 of have proven likelihood of enhancing consequences of these [proposed]
this preamble. The first test project child passenger safety on an aggregate changes, both in terms of inadvertent
related to the effect the revisions to the basis.’’ Evenflo urged: ‘‘Our goal should reduction in the current excellent
test seat assembly might have on the be to adopt changes that will performance of the CRS [child restraint
dynamic performance of child definitively enhance child passenger system] or the resultant increase in
restraints. Dummies currently specified safety, not to undertake changes solely cost.’’ The National Safe Kids Campaign
in FMVSS No. 213 were tested with for the purpose of making changes.’’ (Safe Kids) urged the agency ‘‘to be
child restraints on the revised seat Graco was concerned that some portions mindful of the practicalities and costs
assembly, and the performance of the of the proposed revisions may have associated with changes that might
dummies was compared to that little benefit to child passenger safety overly burden child restraint and
observed in compliance tests. The and may ‘‘negatively affect the past vehicle manufacturers, thereby
second test project related to assessing efforts of the agency.’’ The commenter requiring them to discontinue certain
any performance differences that may said it assumed that costs of child product models or pass on unreasonable
exist between the Hybrid II and the costs to consumers. Child safety seats
Hybrid III dummies. The third test 4 Several commenters believed that the NPRM did must remain both affordable and safe.’’
project involved evaluating whether not ‘‘meet the spirit intended by Congress’’ in The American Academy of Pediatrics
child restraints tested with the Hybrid enacting Section 14 of the TREAD Act because the stated, ‘‘While the Academy strongly
III dummies could meet the proposed estimated benefits of the proposed changes were at
most 6 fatalities and 6 serious injuries annually
supports the proposed measures to
scaled HIC, chest injury limits, and Nij (quote from ARCCA’s comment, page 2.) Stephen make child restraints even more
measures. Reports relating to these Syson (Syson-Hille & Associates), Martha Bidez protective than they are today, these
projects have been placed in the docket (Bidez & Associates) and ARCCA suggested that the improvements cannot come at the
for this rulemaking. agency undertake rulemaking beyond the proposals
of the NPRM. Among the suggested rulemaking
expense of fewer children using child
were the following from these commenters: the restraints or more children using
VII. Summary of Comments on the
prohibition of lap belts; require manufacturers to outdated car safety seats.’’ The
NPRM put child-safe restraints in cars; recall all low-shield Association of International Automobile
booster seats; require that Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
NHTSA received approximately 35 § 571.208) criteria for children be met in every
Manufacturers, Inc., expressed concern
comments on the May 1, 2002 NPRM for passenger seating position; require manufacturers to that ‘‘the lack of use or the misuse of
this final rule. Commenters included label vehicle seats that do not meet Standard No. child restraint systems presents a far
child restraint manufacturers, motor 213 requirements without a child restraint in place; greater opportunity to improve child
require that ‘‘survival space’’ be maintained in the passenger safety than seeking enhanced
vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle rear seat in rear impact crashes; and require all
dealers and other industry associations, seats, seat belts and child restraints be designed to performance of child restraint systems,
child passenger safety consumer groups, prevent submarining and to retain occupants under particularly if the consequence of the
the National Transportation Safety all collision circumstances; require vehicles to enhanced performance is decreased use
provide a minimum allowable clearance for all and increased misuse.’’
Board, child safety research and testing seating positions where a child restraint system can
organizations, and private individuals. be installed; require child restraints to provide both
Safe Kids also expressed concern that
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers upper and lower body restraint on the hard boney increased prices of child restraints
Association (JPMA) conducted a series portions of the body; amend Standard No. 213 to could affect State child restraint use
limit protrusions and sharp corners contactable in laws. Safe Kids stated that most parents
of 80 sled tests of child restraints in any crash and to improve padding on back and side
response to the NPRM and included the wings.
and caregivers will be expected to
purchase a minimum of two or three
results of the testing in its comment. The rulemakings suggested by these commenters
go beyond those included in the NPRM for restraints for each child to comply with
a. General Comments on the Proposals consideration by the agency within the tight evolving State child restraint use laws
deadlines of the act. The suggestions will be that extend coverage to more and more
The commenters generally expressed considered suggestions for future rulemaking.
Copies of the comments will be placed in Docket
children. ‘‘As those seats become more
support for the regulatory goals of the 7938 (NHTSA plan for future work on child expensive, legislators may be reluctant
NPRM to enhance child passenger passenger safety). to make important legislative

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37626 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

improvements to their states child the seat assembly; and changing the old dummy rather than use the Hybrid
restraint laws.’’ stiffness of the seat assembly’s cushion. III dummy in its place. Most
A number of commenters believed that commenters objected to using the
b. Updated Bench Seat
the stiffness of the seat cushion has a weighted Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
There was unanimous support for strong effect on child restraint (weighted to 62 lb) to assess injury
amending Standard No. 213’s performance. Some commenters were reference values in compliance tests of
specifications for the test seat assembly uncertain whether performance would child restraints recommended for use by
used to test child restraints in the be affected and suggested that testing children weighing over 50 lb. Most
agency’s compliance tests. Almost all of and research be completed before believed that the dummy’s weighting
the commenters believed that the test changing the foam. produced a dummy that was
seat assembly should be more unrepresentative of a 62 lb child. Some
representative of the seats of newer c. Crash Pulse
were concerned that the weights could
passenger vehicles. Two commenters The comments focused generally on interfere with the proper functioning of
(Martha Bidez, Public Citizen) had an the issues of the sled pulse shape the dummy’s instrumentation. Some of
opposing view. Ms. Bidez believed that (widening of the corridor) and severity. these commenters suggested that the
the seat assembly should either have Many commenters agreed with the dummy should be used only to assess
features representing seats in the agency that widening the corridor of the the structural integrity of child
average age vehicle in the U.S. (which sled pulse from 80 milliseconds (ms) to restraints in the standard’s dynamic test,
the commenter stated is 9 years old) or approximately 90 ms in duration would and not the capability of the restraint to
features that present the most allow more laboratories to run the limit head excursion or forces to the
demanding (‘‘worst case’’) conditions compliance test without decreasing the dummy’s head, neck or chest areas.
under which child restraints should be effectiveness of the testing. However,
tested. Public Citizen suggested that the child restraint manufacturers expressed e. Application of the Standard
agency should adjust its testing, or concern that widening the corridor will Of the commenters addressing
create another test, that will measure the make the standard more stringent, application of the standard, a majority
effectiveness of child restraints in older because child restraint manufacturers supported increasing the weight limit
cars. will have to design products that can contained in the ‘‘child restraint
Amending the seat cushion angle by comply at the new extremes of the system’’ definition. Most of these
increasing it from 8 degrees off compliance corridor. These commenters commenters supported increasing the
horizontal to 15 degrees was generally also believed that a wider test corridor weight limit to 65 lb with a future
supported, as was amending the seat will necessarily lead to more lab-to-lab increase to 80 lb upon introduction of
back angle by increasing it from 15 variability during certification and the 10-year-old dummy. A few
degrees off vertical to 22 degrees. compliance testing, which, the commenters opposed establishing 65 lb
Several commenters viewed these commenters stated, increases the as an intermediate step in favor of
changes as aligning the bench seat more compliance burden on manufacturers. amending the standard directly to 80 lb.
with the ECE Regulation 44 seat ARCCA, Inc. believed that the There were also a few divergent
assembly bench and suggested that the Standard No. 213 pulse is actually less comments on whether the agency
agency completely use the ECE severe than all of the 30 mph barrier test should extend the regulation to a
Regulation 44 seat dimensions. pulses from actual vehicles, and that the maximum weight beyond that of the
Most commenters agreed with the standard’s pulse severity should be heaviest dummy used in the standard.
proposals for amending the seat belts on increased. All other commenters did not
the test seat assembly. Some f. Injury Criteria
want to increase the severity of the
commenters expressed concerns about crash pulse. Many expressed the view The agency received widely divergent
certain aspects of the test seat that the velocity change should not be comments on the proposal to limit
assembly’s seat belts that were not raised because the current test is already measurement of HIC to 15 milliseconds
addressed by the NPRM, such as the reflective of the top few percent of and to use the injury criteria of Standard
vertical location of the lap belt crashes. A number of commenters No. 208 that were scaled for children.
anchorages. believed that the crash pulse should be The Alliance, UMTRI and
On the other hand, commenters did reduced in severity because the most SafetyBeltSafe supported the use of a 15
not see eye-to-eye on the proposal to frequent crashes involving children in ms limit on the head injury criterion
change the seat back to represent a fixed child restraints are those with lower (HIC) limit as a more realistic way to
vehicle seat. Supporters of the change crash pulse severities than the test assess head and brain injury, with the
believed that a fixed seat back replicates pulse. Others believed that a relatively lower HIC values proposed for each
today’s seat back in passenger cars and severe, ‘‘worst case’’ scenario should be dummy. JPMA stated that it was willing
harmonizes with the test bench setups replicated. to consider supporting a 15 ms limit
for ECE, Canadian and Australian (HIC 15), if the agency can undertake
regulations. Some commenters were d. New Dummies research to assure that there will not be
concerned that not enough was known Commenters generally supported unintended consequences from
about how fixing the seat back would using the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-year- countermeasures needed to meet HIC
affect child restraint system old dummies in Standard No. 213 15. However, JPMA did not support the
performance, while others opposed the compliance tests, in place of the 9- other proposed new injury criteria,
proposal believing that fixing the seat month and Hybrid II 3-year-old including the scaled HIC values. The
back would result in a less rigorous test dummies now used by the agency. commenter stated that the tests of child
condition. However, a number of commenters restraints it conducted with the
Several commenters responded to the expressed concerns that the Hybrid III 6- proposed CRABI and Hybrid III
NPRM’s request for comments on the year-old dummy’s neck was too flexible dummies produced injury reference
agency’s decisions against changing, at for use in testing child restraints. These values that exceeded the proposed
this time the length of the bench seat’s commenters suggested that the agency limits, which the commenter said is a
bottom seat cushion, including a floor to continue its use of the Hybrid II 6-year- concern given the high level of

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37627

effectiveness of current child restraints. compliance criterion unless these are The results from this series of
The commenter suggested that it might proven to be useful predictors of child dynamic sled tests were compared to
be more feasible to use the FMVSS No. neck injury. The Insurance Institute for actual compliance tests that the agency
208 criteria in FMVSS No. 213 if the Highway Safety (IIHS) was concerned had conducted to determine what effect,
agency were to specify a ‘‘more realistic that studies of real-world crashes if any, the revisions to the test seat
crash pulse for FMVSS No. 213, such as indicate that neck injuries due to assembly might have on the dynamic
the one contained in the FMVSS No. inertial forces appear to be rare, and, the performance of child restraints. NHTSA
208 sled test.’’ Graco was concerned that commenter stated, it is not clear how compared measurements taken for seat
some seats that have historically child restraints could be better designed back rotation in rear-facing tests, and
performed well in the real world and in to lower neck injury measures. HIC, chest acceleration, and head and
compliance testing would fail the new VIII. Amendments knee excursion in forward-facing tests.
criteria. All of the proposed changes were
A few commenters supported while a. Updated Bench Seat simultaneously incorporated into the
others opposed the proposals to adopt a 1. Post-NPRM Test Program test seat assembly, and were not
new chest deflection criterion and to individually assessed for its effect on
As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA
adopt the chest acceleration limits that child restraint performance.
had initiated a test program in response
were scaled for children and i. Seat Back Rotation. The effect of the
to the TREAD Act to assess seat
incorporated into FMVSS No. 208. revised test seat assembly on measured
parameters of production seats, working
JPMA, TraumaLink, UMTRI, seat back rotation in rear-facing tests did
with the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center
SafetyBeltSafe and others opposed not show a clear pattern.
Aircraft Division at Patuxent River,
incorporation of the proposed chest
Maryland (PAX). PAX analyzed seat Rear-facing tests were conducted
deflection and reduced chest geometry data, including seat cushion
acceleration limits, because these types using the revised test seat assembly with
angle, seat back angle, seat cushion rear-facing infant only seats using the
of injuries do not occur in children in length, seat back length, tether anchor
child restraint systems. These newborn dummy, and rear-facing
locations, child restraint anchorage convertible restraints using the newborn
commenters and others suggested that system anchor locations, and seat belt
the agency collect data on chest and Hybrid II 9-month-old dummies. In
locations. tests of rear-facing restraints, HIC and
deflection to establish a database that After publication of the NPRM, PAX
could be used to evaluate these chest acceleration are not currently
conducted a series of dynamic tests measured, since the newborn and 9-
measures more in the future. using a revised test seat assembly that
Virtually all parties commenting on month-old dummies are not
had been constructed incorporating the
this aspect of the proposal opposed the instrumented. Further, head and knee
changes to the test seat assembly
modified Nij neck criterion (modified excursion are not measured. The only
proposed in the NPRM. These tests were
from the criterion in FMVSS No. 208 in measured parameter in testing rear-
conducted with the dummies currently
that the limits on axial force were facing child restraints is provided in
specified in FMVSS No. 213 (the
excluded). JPMA, SafetyBeltSafe, newborn and TNO 9-month, and Hybrid S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 213, which
UMTRI, TraumaLink and others did not II 3- and 6-year-old dummies), and with specifies that when a rear-facing child
support adopting the proposed Nij various types of child restraints (rear- restraint is tested, the angle between the
criterion at this time because the facing infant only, rear- and forward- system’s back support surface for the
relationship between the criterion and facing convertible, forward-facing child and the vertical shall not exceed
real-world injuries ‘‘under the type of ‘‘hybrid boosters’’ (a child restraint that 70°.
loading simulated by FMVSS 213’’ is can be used as a forward-facing restraint The seat back rotation measured in
‘‘not well established’’ (quoting with harness for toddlers up to 40 lb these tests is compared to the seat back
UMTRI). SafetyBeltSafe believed that and as a belt-positioning booster with rotation measured in NHTSA
neither Nij as proposed nor Nij with a children over 40 lb), and both backless compliance tests of the identical child
limit on tension should be used as a and high-back boosters). restraints in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1.—SEAT BACK ROTATION IN REAR-FACING TESTS


Seat back rotation (degrees)
relative to vertical— Change
Child restraint Type Dummy Test seat assembly (%)
Existing Revised

Evenflo On-My-Way ............................................... Infant only ... Newborn 43 ........................................................... 51.5 +19.8
Century 560 ........................................................... Infant only ... Newborn 46 ........................................................... 42.5 ¥7.6
Evenflo On-My-Way ............................................... Infant only ... 9-month 57 ........................................................... 53.9 ¥5.4
Century 560 ........................................................... Infant only ... 9-month 52 ........................................................... 52.9 +1.7
Century Accel ......................................................... Convertible .. Newborn Not tested .............................................. 50.7 N/A
Century STE 2000 ................................................. Convertible .. Newborn Not tested .............................................. 40 N/A
Cosco Triad (LATCH 5 ) ......................................... Convertible .. Newborn Not tested .............................................. 43.1 N/A
Century STE 2000 ................................................. Convertible .. 9-month 42 ........................................................... 50.6 +20.5
Cosco Touriva ........................................................ Convertible .. 9-month 51 ........................................................... 63 +23.5
5 ‘‘LATCH’’ stands for ‘‘Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children,’’ a term that was developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the
standardized child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225. This preamble uses the term to describe either an FMVSS No. 225
anchorage system in a vehicle or a child seat that attaches to an FMVSS No. 225 child restraint anchorage system.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37628 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

The data indicated no clear effect of percent over that measured in the conducted on the existing test seat
the revised test seat assembly on comparable compliance test. In all assembly. Again, however, the rotation
measured seat back rotation in rear- cases, the measured seat back rotation was within the allowable limits.
facing tests. In tests using the newborn was well under the FMVSS No. 213 ii. HIC Measurements. Generally
dummy and two different rear-facing limit of 70°. speaking, HIC increased in tests with
infant-only child restraints, the seat Tests were conducted using the the Hybrid II 3-year-old dummy, and
back rotation angle increased by 19.8 revised test seat assembly on three decreased in tests with the 6-year-old.
percent over that measured in the different rear-facing convertible child Sled tests were conducted using the
comparable compliance test in one, and restraints with the newborn dummy. In revised test seat assembly with the
decreased by 7.6 percent in the other. each case, the measured seat back Hybrid II 3-year-old dummy in forward-
When the same infant-only seats were rotation angle was well below the facing convertible restraints, and in
tested rear facing with the 9-month-old FMVSS No. 213 limit. forward-facing hybrid boosters using the
dummy, the restraint that had PAX also conducted tests of two restraint’s internal harness (in the
previously shown increased seat back different rear-facing convertible child toddler seat mode), and with the Hybrid
rotation with the newborn dummy restraints with the 9-month-old dummy II 6-year-old dummy in both backless
decreased by 5.4 percent over that using the revised test seat assembly. In and high back belt-positioning booster
measured in the comparable compliance each of these tests, the seat back rotation restraints. The HIC measured in these
test, while the restraint that had shown increased by at least 20 percent over tests is compared to the HIC measured
decreased seat back rotation with the that measured in the comparable in NHTSA compliance tests of the same
newborn dummy increased by 1.7 FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests model child restraints in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2.—HIC IN TESTS OF FORWARD-FACING CHILD RESTRAINTS


HIC∞
Dummy Test seat assembly Change
Child restraint Type (Hybrid II) (%)
Existing Revised

Cosco Touriva ............................................. Convertible ................................................. 3-year ..... 500 703 +40.6
Century Accel .............................................. Convertible ................................................. 3-year ..... 480 627 +30.5
Century Breverra ......................................... Hybrid Booster ........................................... 3-year ..... 659 670 +1.6
Cosco High Back Booster ........................... Hybrid Booster ........................................... 3-year ..... 535 446 ¥16.6
Cosco Grand Explorer ................................ Backless BPB ............................................. 6-year ..... 438 267 ¥39.0
Cosco Grand Explorer ................................ Backless BPB ............................................. 6-year ..... 438 328 ¥25.1
Century Breverra ......................................... High-back BPB ........................................... 6-year ..... 308 209 ¥32.0
Cosco High Back Booster ........................... High-back BPB ........................................... 6-year ..... 399 381 ¥4.6

The effect of the revised seat assembly However, in each of four tests recorded using the Hybrid II 3- and 6-
on HIC measurements appear to be conducted with the 6-year-old dummy, year-old dummies in the same series of
varied, and largely dependent on the two each with backless boosters and tests outlined in Table 2 above. Table 3
dummy used in the testing. In three of high back boosters, the measured HIC details the recorded chest acceleration
four tests conducted with the 3-year-old was lower than in the identical in these tests as well as the comparable
dummy, the measured HIC was higher compliance tests conducted on the compliance tests of the identical child
using the revised test seat assembly as existing test seat assembly. Overall, restraints. The measured chest
compared to compliance tests some measurements differed by as much accelerations decreased in each of the
performed on the existing test seat as ± 40 percent between tests conducted tests using the 3-year-old dummy in the
assembly. This includes both tests on the two different test seat assemblies. revised test seat assembly. The
conducted using forward-facing All HIC measurements were well within measured chest accelerations generally
convertible restraints, and one of two the existing limit of 1000. increased in tests using the 6-year-old
tests using a forward-facing hybrid iii. Chest Acceleration. Chest dummy in the revised test seat
booster with its internal harness system. acceleration measurements were assembly.

TABLE 3.—CHEST ACCELERATION IN TESTS OF FORWARD-FACING CHILD RESTRAINTS


Chest acceleration (g)—
Dummy Test seat assembly Change
Child restraint Type (Hybrid II) (%)
Existing Revised

Cosco Touriva ............................................. Convertible ................................................. 3-year-old 42 40.4 ¥3.8


Century Accel .............................................. Convertible ................................................. 3-year-old 46 26.8 ¥41.7
Century Breverra ......................................... Hybrid Booster ........................................... 3-year-old 40 29.2 ¥27.0
Cosco High Back Booster ........................... Hybrid Booster ........................................... 3-year-old 44 41.6 ¥5.5
Cosco Grand Explorer ................................ Backless BPB ............................................. 6-year-old 44 49.2 +11.8
Cosco Grand Explorer ................................ Backless BPB ............................................. 6-year-old 44 38.6 ¥12.3
Century Breverra ......................................... High-back BPB ........................................... 6-year-old 33 35.1 +6.4
Cosco High Back Booster ........................... High-back BPB ........................................... 6-year-old 40 42.4 +5.5

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37629

All chest acceleration measurements restraint. iv. Head Excursion. It is not the TNO 9-month-old dummy on two
recorded were well within the current evident whether use of the revised test different forward-facing convertible
limit of 60 g’s maximum. It is noted, seat assembly will have a positive or restraints. Head excursion was
however, that while most chest negative effect on measured head compared to the head excursion
acceleration measurements were excursion. measured in compliance tests of the
comparable in magnitude between the In the tests outlined in Tables 2 and identical child restraints using the same
two test seat assemblies, there was one 3, supra, head excursion was measured. dummies. Table 4 provides this
test in which the measured values In addition, head excursion was comparison.
differed by 42 percent for the same child measured in sled tests performed with

TABLE 4.—HEAD EXCURSION IN TESTS OF FORWARD-FACING CHILD RESTRAINTS


Head excursion (mm)—
Dummy Test seat assembly Change
Child restraint Type (Hybrid II) (%)
Existing Revised

Cosco Touriva ........................................... Convertible ............................................... 9-month-old 432 434 +0.6


Century Accel ............................................ Convertible ............................................... 9-month-old 483 396 ¥17.9
Cosco Touriva ........................................... Convertible ............................................... 3-year-old .. 660 498 ¥24.6
Century Accel ............................................ Convertible ............................................... 3-year-old .. 635 495 ¥22.0
Century Breverra ....................................... Hybrid Booster .......................................... 3-year-old .. 483 572 +18.4
Cosco High Back Booster ......................... Hybrid Booster .......................................... 3-year-old .. 432 572 +32.4
Cosco Grand Explorer .............................. Backless Booster ...................................... 6-year-old .. 381 363 ¥4.7
Cosco Grand Explorer .............................. Backless Booster ...................................... 6-year-old .. 381 457 +20.0
Century Breverra ....................................... High-back Booster .................................... 6-year-old .. 457 500 +9.4
Cosco High Back Booster ......................... High-back Booster .................................... 6-year-old .. 432 447 +3.5

In three of four tests conducted using were well within the established 813 direct correlation between tests
forward-facing convertible child mm limit prescribed in FMVSS No. conducted with the revised test seat
restraints, a decrease in head excursion 213.6 assembly versus the existing test seat
was observed in tests using the revised v. Knee Excursion. For the tests of assembly, or with the type of child
test seat assembly. However, in tests forward-facing child restraints outlined restraint used or the test dummy used.
conducted on the revised seat assembly in Table 4 above, NHTSA also measured Table 5 presents the results. As with the
using forward-facing hybrid boosters, the dummy’s knee excursion. These other injury criteria discussed above, all
backless and high back belt-positioning results were compared to the knee knee excursion measurements were well
booster seats, a marginal increase in excursion measured in compliance tests within the established 915 mm limit
head excursion was observed. All of the identical child restraints using the
prescribed in FMVSS No. 213.
measured head excursions, on the same dummies. The knee excursion
existing and revised test seat assemblies, measurements did not demonstrate a

TABLE 5.—KNEE EXCURSION IN TESTS OF FORWARD-FACING CHILD RESTRAINTS


Knee excursion (mm)—
Dummy Test seat assembly Change
Child restraint Type (Hybrid II) (%)
Existing Revised

Cosco Touriva ........................................... Convertible ............................................... 9-month-old 483 546 +13.2


Century Accel ............................................ Convertible ............................................... 9-month-old 559 485 ¥13.2
Cosco Touriva ........................................... Convertible ............................................... 3-year-old .. 813 671 ¥17.5
Century Accel ............................................ Convertible ............................................... 3-year-old .. 762 681 ¥10.7
Century Breverra ....................................... Hybrid Booster .......................................... 3-year-old .. 584 696 +19.1
Cosco High Back Booster ......................... Hybrid Booster .......................................... 3-year-old .. 635 660 +4.0
Cosco Grand Explorer .............................. Backless Booster ...................................... 6-year-old .. 686 610 ¥11.1
Cosco Grand Explorer .............................. Backless Booster ...................................... 6-year-old .. 686 653 ¥4.8
Century Breverra ....................................... High-back Booster .................................... 6-year-old .. 610 500 ¥17.9
Cosco High Back Booster ......................... High-back Booster .................................... 6-year-old .. 686 701 +2.2

vi. Summary of PAX Testing. Overall, criteria in the tests were well within the Manufacturers will not need to redesign
while differences were seen in tests established limits of FMVSS No. 213. their restraints due to the changes in the
using identical child restraints on the This leads the agency to conclude that seat assembly.
existing versus the revised test seat the changes to the standard test seat 2. Response to Comments
assembly, NHTSA did not identify any assembly will not have a significant
specific trends along specified effect on compliance test results of child There was unanimous support for
parameters, i.e., child restraint type, restraint systems that meet the current amending Standard No. 213’s
dummy, etc. All of the measured injury requirements of the standard. specifications for the test seat assembly

6 Excursions are measured from Point Z identified


in the same place on both the existing and revised
test seat assemblies.
in Figure 1B of FMVSS No. 213, which is located

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37630 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

used to test child restraints in the excursion is measured is unchanged. showing of a safety need to reduce the
agency’s compliance tests. Almost all of JPMA further stated that— head excursion limit to take account of
the commenters believed that the test the fact that the increased angle allows the the effect of testing on the new test
seat assembly should be more child’s head to travel a longer distance in the assembly.
representative of the seats of newer real world will permit the manufacturers to In response to JPMA’s comment about
passenger vehicles. utilize that additional movement to manage increased head excursion benefiting
i. Seat Back and Cushion Angles. some of the crash energy without making overall child restraint performance due
Amending the seat cushion angle by other, perhaps less desirable, changes to to increased ‘‘ride down’’ of crash
increasing it from 8 degrees off other restraint parameters. For example, the forces, the agency agrees that generally
harness system could include measures and/
horizontal to 15 degrees was generally speaking, increased ride down can help
or devices to add energy absorption similar
supported. Several commenters viewed to vehicle retractor torsional load limiters, reduce head, neck and chest
these changes as aligning the bench seat which were implemented with air bags as a accelerations. However, increased ride
more with the ECE Regulation 44 seat means to reduce chest compression. Such down obviously must not come at the
assembly bench. Ford believed that the devices require that a small amount of cost of increased risk of head impacts
proposed change to the seat cushion additional head excursion be permitted in due to excessive head excursions in a
angle would help make rigid attachment the real world to achieve a longer ride-down crash. Thus, the agency does not concur
LATCH infant seats commercially viable and take advantage of the vehicle’s ‘crumple with any implication that head
zone.’ * * *
in the U.S., and would help facilitate excursions beyond what is permitted by
the use of infant restraints by reducing The agency does not agree that testing Standard No. 213 is acceptable. The
the need for consumers to add towels or on the new seat assembly will result in agency is concerned that child restraints
pool noodles as spacers under the across-the-board reductions in dummy that might meet the head excursion
restraints. Ms. Bidez and Public Citizen head excursions as compared to head requirements of the standard when
opposed the proposed change to the seat excursions of dummies tested on the tested on the new test seat assembly
cushion angle, stating that seat cushion current assembly. It is not evident from might allow excessive head excursion
angle should represent the average angle the agency’s test data that use of the when used in actual vehicles whose seat
of a 9-year-old vehicle, not a new revised test seat assembly will have a cushions are more like the current seat
vehicle. Ms. Bidez stated that older seat positive or negative effect on measured assembly. The agency asks the public
cushions are more horizontal and do not head excursion. Table 4, supra, provides for help in monitoring this situation and
contain any anti-submarining structural test results comparing head excursion providing information of a real world
components. measurements in a total of 10 tests using problem should one occur. If there are
The agency has decided to revise the the revised test seat assembly and using unreasonable excessive head excursions
seat cushion angle as proposed. the existing test seat assembly due to child restraints being used on
Increasing seat cushion angle from 8 (compliance test results). These tests vehicle seats that are flatter than the
degrees off horizontal to 15 degrees will were conducted using (1) the 9-month- revised seat assembly, reducing the
make the seat assembly more old dummy in two different forward- head excursion limit of the standard
representative of currently facing convertible restraints, (2) the 3- will be considered by the agency.
manufactured vehicle seats and will year-old dummy in two forward-facing Amending the seat back angle by
reduce or eliminate the need for convertible restraints and two forward- increasing it from 15° off vertical to 22°
supplementary devices, such as rolled facing hybrid booster restraints, and (3) was widely supported. Several
towels or swimming noodles, now being the 6-year-old dummy in two backless commenters viewed these changes as
used with infant seats to compensate for boosters and in two high back belt- aligning the bench seat more with the
the difference in seat cushion angle of positioning boosters. In three of four ECE Regulation 44 seat assembly bench,
the current seat assembly and new tests conducted using forward-facing which has a seat back angle of 20 ± 1°.
vehicle seats. The agency does not agree convertible child restraints, a decrease In response to commenters and in
with Ms. Bidez and Public Citizen that in head excursion was observed in tests further consideration of the agency’s
the seat assembly should be using the revised test seat assembly. efforts to harmonize its standards where
representative of seats in 9-year-old However, in tests conducted on the possible, the agency amends the seat
vehicles. Such a rearward-looking revised seat assembly using forward- back angle by increasing it to 20 ± 1° to
approach ensures the obsolescence of facing hybrid boosters, backless and make it consistent with the test seat
the standard, since seats in the vehicle high back belt-positioning booster seats, assembly of ECE Regulation 44. The
fleet are already in the process of being a marginal increase in head excursion agency believes that the difference
replaced by the seats of more modern was observed. between 22° and 20 ± 1° is negligible
design. While differences of up to +32.4 and should have no significant effect on
UMTRI expressed concern that tests percent and ¥24.6 percent were child restraint performance.
of child restraints on a seat assembly measured in tests using the revised and ii. Belt Systems On The Standard Seat
with a seat cushion at the proposed 15 existing test seat assemblies, there was Assembly. The commenters generally
degree angle to horizontal generally no distinctive trend across dummy or agreed with the proposals for amending
resulted in decreased head excursion child restraint types. Thus, the agency the seat belts on the test seat assembly.
values of about two inches and cannot conclude that the new seat Almost all of the commenters supported
increased chest accelerations by an assembly necessarily results in a less increasing the spacing between the
average of 4 g. UMTRI suggested rigorous test of a child restraint’s ability anchors of the lap belt from 222
reducing the allowable head excursion to limit head excursion as compared to millimeters (mm) to 392 mm in the
limit in Standard No. 213 by two inches the existing seat assembly. Further, all center seating position and from 356
to compensate for the change. JPMA measured head excursions on the mm to 472 mm in the outboard seating
disagreed with UMTRI’s comment that existing and revised test seat assemblies positions. JPMA stated that it does not
the head excursion limit should be in NHTSA’s program were well within object to the proposal, but noted that the
changed, stating its belief that there is the established 813 mm limit prescribed potential effect in side impact testing is
no difference in safety since the in FMVSS No. 213. Thus, the agency unknown. Ms. Bidez suggested that the
reference point from which head does not believe that there has been a anchors should be set not at an averaged

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37631

spacing but at the maximum anchorage Act. In addition, information from a a lap/shoulder belt, and * * * up to 40
spacing ‘‘now allowed’’ for vehicle 1994 test program indicated an absence percent for the upper torso portion of a
manufacturers in any seat position. of a need to change those anchorage lap/shoulder belt. Such a large
This final rule adopts the proposals, locations. In 1994, the agency explored permitted variation in choice of belt
except the spacing between the anchors locating lap and shoulder belt webbing elongation could markedly
of the lap belt in the center seating anchorages on the standard seat affect FMVSS 213 dynamic test
position will be 400 mm, rather than assembly in a test program supporting results.’’) Ford did not provide data
392 mm as proposed. The agency rulemaking amending FMVSS No. 213 substantiating that differences in test
believes that the 8 mm difference to facilitate the production of belt- results were obtained that were
between 400 and 392 mm is negligible, positioning booster seats. The agency attributed to the use of webbing with
yet the 400 mm specification will make found that the fore-aft and vertical different elongation characteristics. The
the spacing identical to that of the test placement of the lap belt had a agency also cannot conclude that testing
seat assembly of ECE Regulation 44, so negligible effect on the performance of with webbing with a ‘‘tight tolerance’’ of
it is adopted. The lap belt anchorage the child restraints evaluated in the 8 percent, as Ford suggested, is
spacing in the outboard seating position program. 59 FR 37167, 37171; July 21, preferable over testing with webbing
is revised to 472 mm, as proposed. (The 1994. Nonetheless, in that rulemaking with a larger tolerance, e.g., closer to the
ECE regulation specifies a spacing of the agency placed the inboard anchor to 30 or 40 percent limit. Given agency
400 mm for both lap only tests and lap/ reflect the location of the average resources and priorities, the agency can
shoulder tests. The agency cannot condition identified by the research. not conclude that a need exists to
conclude that the difference between The agency believes that those fore-aft initiate rulemaking on this aspect of
472 mm and 400 mm is insignificant, so and vertical locations are still FMVSS No. 213 in the near future.
the agency is not adopting the ECE sufficiently representative of current iii. Fixed Seat Back. Commenters did
specification.) In response to Ms. Bidez, vehicles so as to provide a true and not see eye-to-eye on the proposal to
the Federal motor vehicle safety thorough evaluation of a child change the seat back to represent a fixed
standards specify a minimum spacing restraint’s performance in a crash. vehicle seat. Graco, TraumaLink, the
for the anchorages, not a maximum. As Given agency resources and Alliance, Safekids, Evenflo, JPMA and
to setting the anchorages at the rulemaking priorities, NHTSA does not Xportation supported the proposal.
maximum spacing that the agency has anticipate exploring in the near future JPMA stated that a fixed seat back
measured in its test program, the agency whether the fore-aft and vertical replicates today’s motor vehicle seat
declines this suggestion. The agency placement of the lap belt anchorages back and harmonizes with the test
does not have sufficient information to should be changed, or whether the bench setups for ECE, Canadian and
form the basis for a conclusion that a current two-piece lap and shoulder belt Australian regulations. Xportation said
safety need exists to set the anchorages should be replaced with a three-point that it did not believe that motion of
at the widest spacing observed on a continuous loop lap/shoulder belt with seat backs in vans is significant to the
vehicle seat. Further, setting the a simulated retractor. Our assessment of performance of child restraints. On the
anchorages at the maximum spacing the safety need for such a rulemaking other hand, General Motors agreed with
was not proposed in the NPRM or could change, if new information arises the proposal that a fixed seat back
evaluated in the agency’s test program at that indicates that these issues should would be more representative of the rear
PAX River. be explored. seat of today’s passenger cars, but
A few commenters expressed some In response to the issue raised by expressed concern that a fixed back
concerns about certain aspects of the Ford, the elongation of the standard belt would not be representative of free-
test seat assembly’s seat belts that were webbing used in FMVSS No. 213’s standing seats in vans and other
not addressed by the NPRM. GM, the compliance test was not discussed in multipurpose passenger vehicles. GM
Alliance, and ARCCA, Incorporated the NPRM. It should be noted that believed that it was unclear how fixing
(ARCCA), stated that the seat belt lower specifying elongation of the webbing the seat back would affect child restraint
anchors for both the center and was addressed by NHTSA in the July 21, system performance and suggested that
outboard seating configurations do not 1994 final rule on belt-positioning NHTSA should study the issue.
represent typical anchorage locations boosters (59 FR at 37171). Under current Advocates and Ms. Bidez expressed
found on new vehicles. As stated by the FMVSS No. 213 test procedures, concern that changing to a rigid seat
Alliance, ‘‘The lap belt anchorages are NHTSA tests child restraint systems back may result in a less rigorous test
too far back and too low and the lower using webbing that is typical of that condition, even though, the commenter
anchors for the outboard seat are too installed in vehicles. NHTSA obtains believed, ‘‘many children will be seated
high to represent a typical rear seat.’’ webbing material from seat belt in seats with flexible seat backs.’’
GM and the Alliance also believed that suppliers. These suppliers also furnish ARCCA believed that the configuration
the current two-piece lap and shoulder vehicle manufacturers with the webbing that results in the more severe test of a
belt should be replaced with a three- used in motor vehicles. This aspect of child restraint should be selected.
point continuous loop shoulder/lap belt the compliance test increases the In an effort to assure that the
with a simulated retractor. Ford likelihood that the belts used to attach proposed fixed seatback configuration
suggested that, to improve child restraints to the standard seat does not pose a less stringent test
reproducibility of test results, the assembly are those that will actually be condition for dynamic tests of child
standard should specify a ‘‘reasonably used by consumers to attach the restraints than the existing flexible
tight’’ tolerance of 8% ± 1% elongation restraints to their vehicle seats. seatback, NHTSA conducted a series of
at 10,000 N for the belt webbing used on The belt webbing is required by rigid versus flexible seatback tests at the
the standard test bench. FMVSS No. 209 (S4.2(c)) to meet agency’s Vehicle Research and Test
The agency did not pursue revising elongation requirements. Ford believed Center (VRTC) on September 23–27,
the fore-and-aft and vertical placement that the elongation allowed by that 2002. The proposed seatback and seat
of the seat belt anchorages in response standard is too varied (‘‘from zero to base angles were used.
to the TREAD Act. This was due in part twenty percent for a lap belt, * * * up Six pairs of tests using rigid and
to the short deadlines of the TREAD to 30 percent for the pelvic portion of flexible seatbacks were conducted using

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37632 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

the CRABI–12-month, and the Hybrid III rigid and the flexible configurations NHTSA continues to believe that the
3- and 6-year-old dummies in rear- and were within a 20 percent compliance length of the seat cushion of the
forward-facing seat configurations, all margin indicating a level of performance standard seat assembly need not be
with lap or lap and shoulder belt that is well within the established changed, as it closely reflects
attachments (a top tether was not used). limits. production seats and because there is no
Charts providing plots of the normalized Based on the above data, NHTSA information indicating that the
injury criteria measurements from these concludes that any differences seen difference in seat cushion length may
tests for HIC, chest acceleration and between testing conducted with a rigid affect child restraint performance on the
head and knee excursions are provided versus a flexible seat back would be seat. In addition, in view of the time
in the document titled, ‘‘Comparison of minimal, and therefore, a move to a constraints of the TREAD Act, NHTSA
Flexible and Rigid Seat Backs—FMVSS rigid seat back would not represent a did not assess seat cushion support.
No. 213 Test Assembly,’’ which has less stringent test for child restraints. However, the agency does not believe
been placed in the docket. Further, the agency notes that there are that seat support is critical. While some
The CRABI 12-month-old dummy was more passenger cars (with rigid seat existing passenger cars will likely have
tested in a rear-facing infant-only child backs) than vans and multipurpose a seat cushion that is supported more
restraint with both the rigid and the vehicles (with more flexible seat backs) fully toward the leading edge of the
flexible seat backs. Charts A and B of in the existing vehicle fleet. As such, the cushion, vans and SUVs with bench-
the aforementioned document provide move to a rigid seat back would more type seats that are removable or
plots of the normalized injury criteria closely represent the existing vehicles foldable, or individual seats such as
measurements from these tests for HIC on the road. The rigid seat back, on ‘‘Captains Chairs’’ typically found in the
and chest acceleration. There are no balance, will not be a less stringent second row of seating positions, will
established head and knee excursion requirement, and that it will allow child likely have much less support toward
limits for rear-facing child restraints. restraint performance optimization more the leading edge of the seat cushion
The Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy was representative of the vehicle fleet. In than in passenger cars. The agency does
tested in three forward-facing child addition, a rigid seat back further not anticipate undertaking efforts to
restraints—a 5-point harness, an harmonizes the standard’s test seat evaluate which of these conditions
overhead shield, and a shield-type assembly with ECE Regulation 44, would provide a more stringent test.
booster with the shield in place—using which specifies a rigid seat back in Test Bench Floor: Graco and Ford
both the rigid and flexible seat backs as testing child restraints to that standard. indicated support for the addition of a
in the tests with the CRABI dummy. For the above reasons, NHTSA is floor onto the test bench for testing or
Charts C through K provide plots of the adopting the rigid seat back as proposed rating 7 child restraints. NHTSA does
normalized injury criteria in the NPRM. not believe that the standard seat
measurements from these tests for HIC, Figure 1A of FMVSS No. 213 is assembly needs a floor because child
chest acceleration, head and knee revised to reflect the above changes, as restraints must meet the requirements of
excursion. is the drawing package of the seat FMVSS No. 213 when attached to the
Similar tests were conducted using assembly that is incorporated by seat assembly by use of the seat belts
the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in both reference into the standard. (This final and LATCH system, without use of
a backless belt-positioning booster and rule makes a technical amendment to 49 supplemental floor braces or other
in a high-back belt-positioning booster CFR 571.5 to provide information on attachments. The commenters also
seat. The plots of the normalized injury obtaining copies of the drawing
suggest that an agency consumer
criteria measurements are provided in package).
information program rating the
Charts L through Q of the document. iv. Future Work. The agency
In each of the tested configurations tentatively decided in the NPRM that performance of child restraints should
(e.g., 3-year-old dummy in an overhead certain features of the bench seat need utilize all features with which the
shield convertible restraint), only one not be changed because they either restraint is equipped, including those
set of rigid versus flexible comparison reflected the design of production seats that are optional, i.e., that are not
tests was run. As such, the data used to or are different but the difference was necessary for the restraint to meet
evaluate the effects of the seat back are deemed not to have an effect on child Standard No. 213. The agency will
limited at best. The data were restraint performance in dynamic consider the suggestion when
inconclusive as to whether a rigid seat testing. developing its upcoming consumer
back represents a less vigorous test. Seat Cushion Length: NHTSA found information pilot programs relating to
Review of the data indicates that, in that the current FMVSS No. 213 seat child restraint performance.
some cases, the move to a rigid seat back assembly has a seat pan length that is Seat Cushion Stiffness: The question
resulted in a reduction in measured about 50 mm longer than the average of the stiffness of the seat cushion
dummy response (lower HIC and chest seat pan length observed in today’s attracted most of the comments relating
g’s for the 3-year-old dummy in vehicle fleet. The agency did not believe to features of the seat assembly that the
overhead shield convertible). However, that the difference was significant. NPRM did not propose to change. The
other cases show increases in dummy Commenters Consumers Union, Ms. NPRM stated that the agency was
response when the rigid seat back is Bidez, SafetyBeltSafe and ARCCA interested in increasing the stiffness of
used (higher HIC for 3-year-old dummy believed that the agency should the cushion, but was uncertain what
in 5-point harness convertible, shield consider shortening the length of the differences, if any, could be seen in
booster; also for 6-year-old dummy in seat cushion to reflect a more 7 Section 14(g) of the TREAD Act directed
backless belt-positioning booster). demanding test condition. Ford NHTSA to establish a child restraint safety ratings
Importantly, NHTSA notes that where commented that the current seat program. The agency has established an ease of use
differences in performance were noted cushion is about the same length as a ratings program and will be conducting pilot
for a particular injury criteria in a tested typical rear seat cushion, but suggested programs on possible ratings programs geared
toward rating child restraint performance in sled
configuration, those differences were that the support for the seat cushion be tests and vehicle performance in frontal vehicle
typically very small. Furthermore, in extended to more realistically support crash tests. 67 FR 67491 (November 5, 2002)(Docket
nearly each instance, results for both the the front edge of the cushion. 02–10053).

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37633

dynamic testing. Comments were Ford stated that current rear seats are Transport Canada and the agencies work
requested on what the stiffness should typically thinner and firmer than the closely on regulatory initiatives
be (67 FR at 21812). test bench seat cushion. Ms. Bidez concerning child restraint safety.
Several commenters believed that the believed that the test cushion must Harmonizing the countries’
stiffness of the seat cushion has a strong reflect the softer seats of the majority of requirements to the extent consistent
effect on child restraint performance. used vehicles on the road today. ARCCA with the safety needs of each country is
Consumers Union (CU) commented that believed that the seat cushion in a goal shared by both entities.
it believed that cushion stiffness plays Standard No. 213 may be too thick to Specifically with respect to the TREAD
a major role in child restraint match the vehicle seats, thereby Act, NHTSA has discussed each of the
installation and suggested that further allowing more deflection before revisions with Transport Canada.
tests and analysis were needed. UMTRI becoming stiffer. The commenter Transport Canada is aware of the
expressed concern that the foam of the suggested that the standard ‘‘should err changes, and the agencies will continue
present test seat assembly is softer than on the side of a softer cushion which efforts to harmonize regulations to the
many seats in the current fleet: ‘‘Instead will likely result in increased occupant extent possible.
of representing a worst-case scenario, excursion * * *.’’
After reviewing the comments and b. Crash Pulse
the response of the soft foam and its
tendency to bottom-out on to the considering the agency’s research needs The comments received on this aspect
unrealistically stiff plywood backing and limited resources, NHTSA has of the NPRM focused generally on the
can lead to misleading results that can decided not to endeavor at this time to issues of the sled pulse shape (widening
reduce the level of child passenger change the stiffness of the standard seat of the corridor) and severity.9
safety.’’ Ms. Bidez believed that cushion assembly’s seat cushion foam. As
discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA is 1. On Widening the Corridor
stiffness has a critical influence on child
restraint performance relative to head aware of data that indicate that the As for widening the corridor of the
excursion. These commenters did not stiffness of the seat assembly cushion sled pulse from 80 milliseconds (ms) to
provide supporting data. might not have a marked effect on child approximately 90 ms in duration, all but
Some commenters were uncertain restraint performance. The agency few of the commenters responding to
whether performance would be affected. conducted a study in 1988 comparing this issue supported the change. Many
JPMA stated that it conducted a small the stiffness characteristics of the seat agreed with the agency that the change
group of tests to evaluate the effect of assembly cushion with the would allow more laboratories to run
foam in the tests, but the results characteristics of then current seats. 67 the compliance test ‘‘without decreasing
‘‘yielded more questions than it FR at 21812. Most vehicle seats were the effectiveness of the testing’’ (quoting
answered.’’ Without elaborating on its stiffer than the FMVSS No. 213 seat UMTRI). SafetyBeltSafe (SBS) also
statement, JPMA provided data from a assembly. Sled tests were performed in agreed with NHTSA’s assessment,
test program it conducted on foam that the study to compare the dummy explained in the preamble to the NPRM,
was 4 inches thick with a 25 percent responses of the standard’s seat cushion, that the pulse would enable tests to be
compression/deflection resistance of a representative seat cushion that was conducted closer to 30 mph.
49.5 lb.8 The effect on the performance softer, and a stiff cushion. The agency The JPMA and Graco did not support
of test dummies in various types of concluded that dummy response revising the corridor. JPMA stated that
child restraints was varied. JPMA stated differences were not sufficiently large or widening the corridor necessarily makes
that it did not believe that there is yet consistent to warrant specifying a the standard more stringent, because
enough information to evaluate what the different cushion than that used in the child restraint manufacturers will have
foam firmness and density should be, or current test seat assembly. Because to design products that can comply at
how child restraint performance would possibly revising this parameter of the the new extremes of the compliance
be affected by changing the foam. In its seat assembly would require further corridor. The commenter stated that
own comment, Graco also expressed research, utilizing scarce agency difficulties experienced by test labs in
that it was unsure of how performance resources, for disproportionate safety fitting their pulses within the existing
would be affected and suggested that benefits, the agency will not pursue corridor ‘‘should be addressed by
testing and research be completed changing seat cushion stiffness for the insisting that the test labs figure out
time being. how to meet the existing test corridor.’’
before changing the foam.
Harmonize With Transport Canada:
Commenters had different views as to
Several commenters concurred with the 9 Ford was concerned that the proposed pulse
how the seat cushion foam should be
NPRM that the proposed changes to the only specified sled movement during the first 90
changed. JPMA expressed cautious
test seat assembly would advance ms, but limited dummy responses for 300 ms. Ford
support for changing the foam to stated: ‘‘Braking of a Hyge sled can have a
harmonization with ECE Regulation 44
resemble more closely the foam substantial effect on dummy kinematics and
in that the seat cushion and seat back readings during rebound. Hyge sled tests are
thickness and compression of rear seats
angles would be similar, as would the generally considered to be unrealistic during the
in real-world automobiles. UMTRI lateral spacing of the seat belt anchors rebound phase because of sled braking. If the
suggested that the agency characterize and the rigidity of the seat back. agency believes that it is essential to limit dummy
the overall seat stiffness of several However, the Alliance, General Motors
measurements during rebound, and the agency
modern vehicles and select a foam plans to use a Hyge-type sled for audit testing, sled
and Evenflo noted that the test bench accelerations between 90 and 300 ms should be
stiffness that matches a mean response. would differ from that used by limited to specify an objective test pulse.’’ The
Transport Canada in testing child agency does not agree that sled braking has caused
8 The foam in the current seat assembly is thicker objectivity problems in the past. The FMVSS No.
and softer than the foam tested by JPMA. The foam restraints to the Canadian child restraint 208 sled test (see Figure 6 of that standard) specifies
in the current seat assembly is 6 inches thick. Two standard. These commenters urged a sled corridor only to 130 ms, but at least 300 ms
pieces of foam (one 2 inches and one 4 inches) may NHTSA to work with Transport Canada of data is collected in measuring injury criteria.
be used to achieve the required dimension. To be to ensure that the test benches are There have not been any problems with the effect
suitable for compliance testing, foam inserts must of the braking of Hyge sleds on dummy kinematics
compress 25 percent under the following load harmonized. and readings during rebound. Accordingly, the
limits: (1) 45–55 pounds for the 2-inch thick foam, NHTSA regularly coordinates its agency is not specifying a pulse corridor between
and (2) 21–27 pounds for the 4-inch thick foam. vehicle safety plans and programs with 90 and 300 ms.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37634 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

JPMA and Graco believed that a wider tested in the more effective manner FMVSS No. 213 compliance test
test corridor will necessarily lead to using this pulse. The agency program. Twenty-four (24) seats were
more lab-to-lab variability during acknowledged in the NPRM the likely tested without a top tether, and 26 seats
certification and compliance testing, need for manufacturers to retest their were tested with a top tether. We
which, the commenters stated, increases restraints because of the new seat secured all seats with only a lap belt (no
the compliance burden on assembly and, by implication, due to the lower anchorages or shoulder belts).
manufacturers. JPMA stated that the changes to the crash pulse (67 FR at Currently, to pass the FMVSS No. 213
agency did not provide data on the 21829). However, the agency believed compliance test, a child restraint must
effect of the different crash pulse with then and continues to do so now that it achieve dummy injury numbers of a HIC
the new bench seat, and believed that is unlikely that child restraints must be less than 1,000 and a resultant chest
the agency must assess the effect of a redesigned because of the change in the acceleration of less than 60 G’s. As
wider sled pulse corridor on child assembly and pulse.10 Restraints are shown below in Figure 1, regardless of
restraint compliance. generally manufactured with enough of whether we equipped the child
The agency responds by concurring a compliance margin that will allow restraints with a top tether, all child
that the revision to the pulse could them to meet the requirements of the restraints achieved dummy injury
affect the manufacture of child standard when tested at a slightly higher readings below the maximum allowable
restraints. Widening the test corridor velocity. values. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the
from 80 ms to approximately 90 ms in To illustrate, NHTSA examined some margin of compliance for HIC and chest
duration does enable NHTSA to test of the work that was performed in acceleration, respectively. The margin of
child restraints closer to 30 mph than support of the development of the child compliance is one minus the measured
the present. To the extent that the 30 restraint ratings program required under injury reading divided by the injury
mph tests are more stringent than tests Section 14(g) of the TREAD Act. As part assessment reference value (IARV) times
conducted in the past at slightly lower of this effort, the agency examined the 100. Higher percentages are better,
speeds, that result is a desired outcome margin by which existing child having less probability of injury.
of the amendment. Widening the restraints meet the injury limits Regarding the HIC, all model year 2000
corridor improves the effectiveness of currently specified in FMVSS No. 213. child restraints tested easily fall within
the test. Child restraint manufacturers In model year 2000, the agency tested 50 the limits specified by the FMVSS No.
will have to certify that their child upright, forward-facing child restraints 213 compliance tests. Most had a
restraints meet the requirements of in accordance under the agency’s compliance margin of more than 50%.
FMVSS No. 213 when tested using the Although the margin is not as large for
10 Note that the agency is not specifying a ‘‘new’’
test pulse, possibly at a higher velocity. chest acceleration, all tested child
crash pulse. Rather, the final rule puts a corridor restraints passed this compliance
They may have to conduct some testing specification around the existing pulse which
to ensure that the restraints can be allows the agency to conduct compliance tests at requirement as well.
certified to the requirements when velocities closer to 30 mph. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37635

ER18JN03.006</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37636 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

ER18JN03.007</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37637

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 5 below illustrate the margin of knee excursions are much closer to the
FMVSS. No. 213 also has a compliance for head excursion and knee compliance limits than HIC and chest
requirement for head and knee excursion, respectively. Head and knee acceleration. This may reflect attention
excursions. Head excursion is limited to excursion limits are compliance limits to occupant protection, since increases
720 mm (28 in) when a top tether is imposed to reduce the chances of a in distance traveled by the occupant
used, and 813 mm (32 in) without use child striking the vehicle interior or reduces the forces experienced by the
of a top tether. Knee excursion is submarining (sliding under the belt feet occupant.
limited to 915 mm (36 in). Figures 4 and first) in an automotive crash. Head and BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

ER18JN03.008</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37638 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

ER18JN03.009</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37639

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C final rule will not necessitate a redesign requirements when tested by NHTSA
During the development of the child of existing child restraint designs to under the same or less severe
restraint ratings program, the agency meet the injury criteria limits conditions. In the same manner,
also conducted dynamic testing of a established in the standard. prudent testing by the manufacturer
number of child restraints both at 30 The agency also does not believe that accounts for routine lab-to-lab
and 35 mph to examine what unusual or unacceptable variability will variability that may occur when testing
differences, if any, resulted from the be introduced into the test results child restraints. Manufacturers must
increase in the velocity at which the test simply because more test labs will be design and produce products that will
was conducted. To attain the higher involved in conducting child restraint pass the compliance test regardless of
speed, a sled pulse with a similar shape tests. Any lab-to-lab variability resulting the laboratory conducting the test.
and duration length as that of the from a properly conducted test will be 2. Increase Pulse Severity
FMVSS No. 213 pulse was used, except insignificant, in part because each
that the change-of-velocity was elevated laboratory must ensure that the pulse it ARCCA opposed the NPRM based on
from 30 mph (48km/h) to 35 mph uses in the FMVSS No. 213 sled test concerns that the proposed changes to
(56km/h). All of the child restraints falls within the corridor specified in the the crash pulse would ‘‘lower, rather
tested produced dummy injury standard. In addition, it is the than raise, the bar for child restraints.’’
measurements well below the FMVSS responsibility of manufacturers to The commenter believed that the
No. 208 criteria of 570 HIC and 55g design and manufacture child restraints Standard No. 213 pulse is actually less
chest acceleration (Hybrid III 3-year-old to meet the requirements of the severe than all of the 30 mph barrier test
dummies were used in the tests). standard, taking into account whatever pulses from actual vehicles, and that the
Although the injury assessment values variability occurs from seat-to-seat standard’s pulse severity should be
were slightly greater in the 35 MPH (56 manufacturing differences and from lab- increased. The commenter suggested
km/h) sled tests than in 30 mph (48 km/ to-lab testing differences. It should also that the standard specify that the
h) sled test, eight of the nine child seats be noted that child restraint dynamic test will be conducted at
tested rated within the 5 star range, and manufacturers are responsible for velocities of not less than 30 mph. ‘‘This
one fell just marginally below in the 4 ensuring that their restraints meet the will ensure that manufacturers do not
star range. This data, in conjunction requirements of the standard when take advantage of the wider corridor to
with the information provided above tested by NHTSA in its compliance test. conduct testing that is less severe than
regarding the compliance margin Manufacturers testing their products to what is currently required by FMVSS
achieved by existing child restraints, the most demanding requirements 213.’’ ARCCA also stated that the
demonstrates that a nominal increase in under the most demanding test standard ‘‘should contain a minimum
the test velocity resulting from the crash conditions increase the likelihood that acceptable peak acceleration level that
pulse corridor established as part of this their products will meet the is more than the 19 G’s or [sic] the
ER18JN03.010</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37640 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

proposed corridor in the NPRM.’’ to be adequately representative of these change in velocity is closer to 40 mph,’’
ARCCA stated: vehicles since child restraints are tests of child restraints should be
This minimum acceleration level should be regularly and increasingly used in these performed at the levels specified by the
high enough to ensure that a child restraint types of vehicles. That is, the stringency agency in testing vehicles in the New
will offer acceptable performance and be of the pulse is justified to better ensure Car Assessment Program.
capable of remaining structurally intact. that each child restraint will not have In contrast, all other commenters
Testing performed by one auto manufacturer structural degradation in a crash and except ARCCA commenting on this
in a minivan demonstrated that various child will limit forces to the child’s head, issue did not want to increase the
restraints structurally failed in 30 mile per neck and torso to tolerable levels, no
hour sled testing using the vehicle’s barrier
severity of the crash pulse.
matter the vehicle the child is in. SafetyBeltSafe (SBS) believed that the
crash pulse. By setting a high minimum peak ARCCA was correct that the agency
acceleration, confidence can be gained in the velocity change should not be raised to
ability of a child seat to remain structurally
had averaged the pulses for the three 33 mph because ‘‘the current test is
intact and protect a child no matter in what classes of vehicles (SUVs, trucks and a already reflective of the top few percent
vehicle it is installed. small school bus) to develop a of crashes.’’ SBS stated that increasing
composite pulse for each vehicle class, the velocity ‘‘will not significantly
ARCCA suggested that the agency and that the composite pulses had peak
specify in Standard No. 213 that the test improve child restraint performance in
acceleration levels that are typically the real world but will surely make the
pulse must fall within a specific lower than the highest peak
corridor and must have a velocity of at products more expensive.’’ Graco stated
accelerations measured in the that if the pulse were increased to 33
least 30 mph and a peak acceleration of individual tests. However, the averaged
at least some predetermined value. mph, it would expect a large number of
pulses allowed the agency to examine child restraints needing to be redesigned
ARCCA believed that that acceleration general trends with respect to the crash
value should be based on the values with ‘‘minimal benefit to child
parameters that determine the passenger safety.’’ UMTRI stated that
obtained from barrier crash tests and be performance of vehicles in a crash. As
greater than the majority of all FMVSS the change in velocity for the test
such, they are representative of the should remain at 30 mph, stating that it
No. 208 tests reported. ARCCA was also pulses of vehicles in which child
concerned about how the values conducted a recent analysis of National
restraints are likely to be used and Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
presented in Table 4 of the NPRM were provide a reasonable foundation upon
calculated, especially the peak g values. data from 1995–2000 which showed
which the standard’s pulse can be that a 30 mph change in velocity is more
The commenter believed that the values based. Further, the agency is unaware of
in the NPRM were erroneously based on severe than approximately 98 percent of
the testing to which ARCCA referred
‘‘average pulses’’ i.e. point-by-point the frontal impact crashes nationwide.
that allegedly demonstrated ‘‘that
averaging of the pulse data to form a UMTRI further noted that since the
various child restraints structurally
single curve for a class of vehicles. NASS database only includes tow-away
failed in 30 mile per hour sled testing
ARCCA stated that the problem with crashes, ‘‘this is a conservative estimate
using the vehicle’s barrier crash pulse.’’
this method is that when pulses with of the percentage of frontal impacts that
To the contrary, child restraints have
peaks at different times are combined, are less severe than 30 mph.’’ UMTRI
proven very effective in real world
the resulting peak is less than either of was concerned that increasing the
crashes and have performed well in the
the pulses averaged. ‘‘This is due to the velocity of the test is not likely to
agency’s studies of child restraint
fact that the crash pulses are out of performance in vehicles tested in NCAP increase safety, but will increase
phase. This is similar to the principle 35-mph frontal crashes. consumer cost of child restraints and
used in noise cancellation devices, ARCCA suggested that the standard may lead to child restraint designs that
when two waves are superimposed the specify that the dynamic test will be could make the restraints less effective
magnitude of the resulting pulse is conducted at velocities of not less than or more easily misused at lower severity
less.’’ 30 mph. This specification is crashes, ‘‘which occur much more
The agency does not agree with unnecessary, since the standard frequently.’’ The Insurance Institute for
ARCCA that the standard’s pulse is currently requires the dynamic tests to Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that its
deficient and should be increased. The be frontal barrier impact simulations ‘‘at review of NASS cases showed that child
pulse is representative of a severe crash a velocity change of 48 km/h [30 mph] restraints designed to pass the current
and subjects child restraints to ‘‘worst with the acceleration of the test platform 30 mph sled test are providing very
case’’ testing in a sufficient manner. The entirely within the curve shown in good protection to children in frontal
severity of a crash pulse is determined Figure 2 * * *.’’ Thus, the agency crashes. IIHS also stated, ‘‘There was no
through a combination of three factors: already conducts the dynamic test at indication, based on an analysis of
the acceleration onset rate, the peak velocities as close as possible to 30 mph injuries, crash description, and photos
acceleration, and the time duration of without exceeding 30 mph or causing in these 10 frontal crashes that
the pulse. The data presented in the the pulse to fall outside of the curve of designing child restraints to withstand
PAX report are based on FMVSS No. Figure 2 of the standard. higher crash forces could have
208 rigid barrier testing at 30 mph ARCCA believed that the velocity of prevented or mitigated any of the
impact speed (approximately 32 mph the sled test should be increased from serious or fatal injuries.’’
total change in velocity, DV) and New 30 mph to 33 mph to replicate the NHTSA concurs with these comments
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) rigid change in velocity typically seen in a that the standard’s crash pulse
barrier testing at 35 mph (approximately 208 barrier test. ‘‘For the 213 pulse to adequately meets a safety need.
37 mph DV). be near the 30 mph barrier test the Increasing the severity could necessitate
The FMVSS No. 213 pulse was very velocity, acceleration and duration the redesign of many child restraints
similar to the pulses generated by sport would all have to be increased.’’ The and could increase costs of the restraints
utility vehicles (SUVs), trucks and small commenter also believed that, since to manufacturers, without a
school buses in an FMVSS No. 208 (32 ‘‘well-restrained adult occupants are proportionate safety benefit. Thus, the
mph DV) crash test. NHTSA believes capable of surviving crashes comparable agency concludes that the pulse should
that the pulse should be severe enough to a 35 mph barrier crash where the not be made more severe at this time.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37641

3. Decrease Pulse Severity research to define the real world acceleration onset rate and higher peak
collision speeds and deceleration pulses acceleration exerted in an SUV crash pulse.
While there was almost unanimous Of the two, the LTV crash pulse presents the
agreement among commenters that the at which the majority of the harm to
children occurs. GM believed that more stringent test condition. Using the LTV-
crash pulse should not be increased, like crash pulse ensures that children
commenters expressed opposing increasing the pulse duration and
exposed to such a severe force, as well as
opinions on whether the severity of the widening the corridor increases the children exposed to less severe conditions in
test pulse should be decreased. The pulse severity somewhat, and coupling cars, will be afforded protection. The reverse,
crash pulse is more severe than most this increase with the use of the new however, is not true. If FMVSS 213 adopted
other pulses, but is similar to crash test dummies and injury criteria ‘‘could a car-like sled test crash pulse, children in
pulses of large sport utility vehicles and make compliance more difficult.’’ GM cars may be protected but that same degree
light trucks (passenger vehicles that are suggested that NHTSA consider using of safety would not necessarily be provided
the FMVSS No. 208 generic sled pulse to children in LTVs with ‘‘stiffer’’ frames that
becoming more and more popular for
if the final rule adopts the Hybrid III test transfer more of the crash generated energy
use as family vehicles) and very similar to the occupants. As a result, Advocates
to the crash pulse of small school buses. dummies and injury measures proposed
in the NPRM. concurs in the agency’s judgment that the
The agency determined in the NPRM existing FMVSS 213 crash pulse be retained.
that the crash pulse should maintain its The Children’s Hospital of
level of stringency so as to replicate Philadelphia (TraumaLink) supported After reviewing all the comments on
vehicle crashes involving vehicles that altering the pulse to be more this issue, NHTSA has decided to retain
had relatively severe crash pulses. Some representative of the passenger car the current severity of the pulse and not
commenters disagreed, believing that environment to ‘‘make it more relevant reduce it. The agency concurs with
the crash pulse should be reduced in to a larger proportion of the real-world Advocates that to ensure safety
severity because the most frequent crash-involved population.’’ The protection for as many child occupants
crashes involving children in child commenter stated that out of the 59,968 as possible, ‘‘critical aspects of test
restraints are those with lower crash children studied in TraumaLink’s procedures should replicate more
pulse severities than the test pulse, Partners for Child Passenger Safety stringent conditions than would be
while others agreed that a relatively study, only 24.1 percent of children experienced in the average vehicle,’’
severe, ‘‘worst case’’ scenario should be were riding in SUV’s and light trucks. and that, given that child restraints are
In contrast, in support of the agency’s used with a wide range of vehicle types
replicated.
In support of reducing the severity of decision not to reduce the severity of and are involved in crashes of varying
the crash pulse, the Alliance of the crash pulse, Advocates for Highway degrees of severity, such a critical aspect
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and Auto Safety (Advocates) believed is the sled pulse. Accordingly, the
stated that the current sled pulse that although cars remain more agency declines to replicate the crash
represents— numerous in the vehicle fleet, use of an conditions of the most frequent collision
LTV crash pulse is representative of event.
an extremely rare ‘‘worst case’’ [(e.g., a stiff real-world crash experience given that
vehicle hitting a full-width non-deformable GM suggested that NHTSA consider
increasing numbers of LTVs have
wall at high speed)]. As a result the addition using the FMVSS No. 208 generic sled
of the new dummies/injury criteria coupled entered the fleet and are frequently used
as passenger and family vehicles. The pulse if this final rule adopts the Hybrid
with this unrepresentative test pulse may
create significantly unintended consequences commenter also discussed why it III test dummies and injury measures
such as reduced availability and increased believed the crash pulse should proposed in the NPRM. As discussed
costs of compliant restraints as well as the replicate the ‘‘worst case’’ scenario over later in this preamble, this final rule
addition of features that may make them the ‘‘most frequent’’ or ‘‘average’’ crash: adopts the Hybrid III test dummies but
more cumbersome and less user friendly. All does not adopt the majority of the injury
of which will reduce their use in the real Although Advocates has urged the agency
to update its test procedures in certain
measures proposed in the NPRM.
world. Nonetheless, the agency makes the
respects to ensure that they are representative
The Alliance stated that an of the modern vehicle fleet, this does not following observations about the
attachment it submitted with its mean that critical test procedures should suggestion to use the FMVSS No. 208
comment contains an analysis mirror the attributes or test the performance generic sled pulse. The generic sled
comparing the severity (acceleration of only the ‘‘average’’ vehicle. While test pulse is less severe than the FMVSS No.
pulses) of full frontal barrier crashes procedures should be representative of the 213 pulse. As shown in the following
vehicle fleet in many respects, not all tests
with vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests. ‘‘In overlay of the existing FMVSS No. 213
or test procedures should be based on the
this analysis a 30 mph full frontal most common or average vehicle in the fleet. pulse with the FMVSS No. 208 generic
barrier test is found equivalent to a 41 To ensure safety protection for all vehicle sled pulse, the former has a greater
mph vehicle-to-vehicle crash. A reduced occupants, critical aspects of test procedures onset rate, higher peak acceleration and
speed of 22 mph for full frontal rigid should replicate more stringent conditions shorter time duration. Further, the
barrier test is found to represent vehicle- than would be experienced in the average FMVSS No. 208 sled pulse, with a peak
to-vehicle crashes with 50%–100% vehicle. This is especially true when only acceleration of about 17 g’s, is less
one test and a single set of test conditions are stringent than most 30 mph passenger
overlap, with each vehicle traveling at
used as the basis for compliance. Thus,
30 mph.’’ vehicle crashes. Because the FMVSS No.
although there are still more cars than LTVs
Along the same lines, General Motors on U.S. highways, and even though more 208 sled pulse is less severe than the
(GM) believed that the crash pulse children are injured while riding in cars than FMVSS No. 213 pulse, this final rule
should represent the most frequent are injured while riding in LTVs, the FMVSS declines the suggestion to adopt it.
collision event. The commenter urged 213 sled test should replicate the faster BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37642 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C


ER18JN03.011</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37643

c. New Dummies dummies. All of these tests were comparative information was gleaned
1. Post-NPRM Test Program conducted with the restraints attached from these tests. Accordingly, the data
to the test seat assembly with the lap from the latter tests are not provided.
As part of the test program conducted belt only, as would be done in a
for NHTSA at the Patuxent River (PAX) i. Tests With The 3-Year-Old
compliance test. Similar comparison Dummies. The following Table 6
test center, PAX conducted a series of tests were conducted with the Hybrid II
dynamic sled tests to evaluate identical illustrates the injury criteria
9-month-old and the CRABI 12-month- measurements for the test series using
child restraints on the revised test seat
old dummy, but as the 9-month-old the Hybrid II and Hybrid III 3-year-old
assembly using both the Hybrid II and
the Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old dummy is uninstrumented, little dummies:

TABLE 6.—TESTS WITH THE HYBRID II AND HYBRID III 3-YEAR-OLDS


HICunlimited Chest acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
Child restraint Dummy
Value Change Value Change Value Change Value Change

Cosco Touriva ................... Hybrid II ............................ 702.8 40.4 19.6 26.4


Hybrid III ........................... 446.8 ¥256 37.6 ¥2.8 15.5 ¥4.1 26.4 0
Century Accel .................... Hybrid II ............................ 626.5 26.8 19.5 26.8
Hybrid III ........................... 355.3 ¥271.3 36.1 +9.3 19.9 +0.4 25.2 ¥1.6
Century Breverra ............... Hybrid II ............................ 669.7 29.2 22.5 27.4
Hybrid III ........................... 536.8 ¥132.9 50.1 +20.9 21.3 ¥1.2 29.1 +1.7
Cosco HB Booster ............ Hybrid II ............................ 446.4 41.6 22.5 26
Hybrid III ........................... 704.9 +258.5 41.6 0 13.4 ¥9.1 22.4 ¥3.6

The Cosco Touriva and the Century Hybrid II dummy, while the fourth test ii. Tests With The 6-Year-Old
Accel are both forward-facing in the series resulted in a significant Dummies. A similar series of tests was
convertible child restraints, and the increase (446.4 to 704.9) in HIC values. conducted with the Hybrid II and
Century Breverra and the Cosco High Similar results are seen when looking at Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies in both
Back Booster are forward-facing hybrid chest acceleration and head and knee backless and high back belt-positioning
boosters. All were tested with the excursions. The varied results can be booster seats on the revised test seat
dummy in the restraint’s internal attributable in part to the very limited assembly. As was the case in tests with
harness system. sample size of child restraints tested. No the 3-year-old dummies, the test results
The results from this series of testing repeatability tests were performed. All for the 6-year-old dummies show
appear to be mixed. Three of four tests injury numbers were well within the considerable fluctuation and no clear
showed a marked decrease in measured current limits prescribed in FMVSS No. trends.
HIC values when testing with the 213. The following Table 7 outlines the
Hybrid III dummy as compared to the results of these tests:
TABLE 7.—TESTS WITH THE HYBRID II AND HYBRID III 6-YEAR-OLDS
HIC Chest acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
Child restraint Dummy
Value Change Value Change Value Change Value Change

Cosco Gr. Explorer ........... Hybrid II ............................ 267.1 49.2 14.3 24


Evenflo Right Fit ............... Hybrid III ........................... 357.6 +90.5 37.8 ¥11.4 11.7 ¥2.6 19.6 ¥4.4
Cosco Gr. Explorer ........... Hybrid II ............................ 328.2 38.6 18 25.7
Evenflo Right Fit ............... Hybrid III ........................... 276.2 ¥52 36 ¥2.6 19.1 +1.1 21 ¥4.7
Century Breverra ............... Hybrid II ............................ 209.4 35.1 19.7 19.7
Hybrid III ........................... 415.7 +206.3 41.4 +6.3 20 +0.3 11.7 ¥8.0
Cosco HB Booster ............ Hybrid II ............................ 380.7 42.4 17.6 27.6
Hybrid III ........................... 756.1 +375.4 38.3 ¥4.1 18.4 +0.8 24 ¥3.2

The original test matrix called for dummies in the same restraint support of the NPRM for this final rule.
testing each restraint with both the impossible. However, unlike rear-facing (See Docket NHTSA–2002–11707–1;
Hybrid II and the Hybrid III 6-year-olds infant seats and forward-facing toddler report dated April 12, 2002.) The report
to facilitate a direct comparison between seats, there is very little difference in concluded in part that sled test results
the two dummies, as was done for the design characteristics between the two generally show fairly consistent dummy
other dummies. However, during the backless booster seats in question that performance with the Hybrid II and
conduct of the sled tests at PAX, the would influence the dynamic response Hybrid III child dummies.
Cosco Grand Explorer was instead of the dummies in a sled test. As such,
2. Commenters Generally Supportive
inadvertently tested twice with the NHTSA has included the data for
Hybrid II 6-year-old, and the Evenflo information. Commenters generally supported
Right Fit was tested twice with the Further, it is noted that VRTC using the CRABI 12-month-old and the
Hybrid III 6-year-old. conducted a study comparing the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies in
NHTSA acknowledges that this makes performance between the Hybrid II and Standard No. 213 compliance tests, in
a direct comparison between the two the Hybrid III child dummy families in place of the TNO 9-month and the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37644 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Hybrid II 3-year-old dummies now used dummy may be more likely to testing conducted with the HIII 6-year-
by the agency. There was support for the experience head-to-leg contacts than old dummy at VRTC or PAX in support
use of the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy ‘‘the three-year-old.’’ Ford asked in its of the TREAD Act has indicated that
in compliance tests, with the exception comment how the agency would treat head-to-chest or head-to-knee impacts is
of a few commenters (discussed below). head acceleration spikes that could be an issue. Such impacts are not typical.11
There was general concern about the caused by head-to-knee contacts. The NHTSA believes that if head-to-knee
need for and capabilities of the commenter also suggested that load contact occurs, there are likely design
weighted Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy. cells be used on the ASIS of the pelvis concerns with respect to the particular
i. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Dummy. of the 6-year-old dummy to evaluate the child restraint that should be addressed
Several commenters expressed concern tendency to submarine under the lap to eliminate such contact. We also
about the biofidelity of the unweighted belt during testing of booster seats, believe it would be very difficult, if not
Hybrid III (HIII) 6-year-old dummy’s because, Ford stated without impossible, to establish an objective
neck and hips and the suitability of the elaborating, the current limit on knee means to determine if, and if so to what
dummy for use in testing child excursion is not an effective way to extent, head-to-knee contact influenced
restraints. TraumaLink stated that, limit submarining in tests of belt- HIC measurement in FMVSS No. 213
based on a sled test program it positioning boosters. compliance testing. Consequently, head
conducted at a test lab, they had NHTSA disagrees with the acceleration spikes caused by head-to-
‘‘significant concerns’’ regarding the commenters that the HIII 6-year-old knee contacts will be included in the
performance of the dummy. ‘‘The tests dummy should not be used in FMVSS HIC computation. Further, the agency
revealed extremely large neck No. 213 testing. The neck of the HIII 6- continues to believe that the HIII
elongation unlikely to be seen in real year-old is currently performing within dummy is needed to better assess the
children in real crashes and resulted in the specifications established by the injury mechanisms to children.
high calculated injury values. These Hybrid III Dummy Family Task Force of The agency is not entirely convinced
results suggest a pattern of injuries that the Society of Automotive Engineers that neck elongation is not occurring to
we do not see in our real world (SAE). The agency is not aware of children in real crashes. We believe it
experience.’’ specific test information and/or data possible that neck injury may
SafetyBeltSafe referred to the tests substantiating the claims of the sometimes not be diagnosed even
performed by TraumaLink to conclude commenters that the dummy is an though it occurs. Since a child’s neck is
that ‘‘We do not now believe that the unsuitable test device for FMVSS No. not fully developed, detection of
HIII 6-year-old dummy is an appropriate 213 testing. injuries is more difficult and injuries
test device to simulate a restrained When the dummy was incorporated could manifest in later years. Also, for
child’’ because of ‘‘unrealistic stretching into the regulation on anthropomorphic fatal injuries, there is often a reluctance
and bending of this dummy’s neck test devices, 49 CFR part 572, the to conduct autopsies in deference to
while tightly restrained by a lap- agency made the following family sensitivity. Consequently, the
shoulder belt in a booster. The result determinations (65 FR 2059) about the cause of death may be listed as massive
was that the dummy’s face directly dummy: head injury, while injury to the neck
contacted the chest, generating an may have also occurred.
unrealistic and unacceptably high HIC.’’ Based on NHTSA’s use of the H-III6C 6-year-
old dummy in calibration tests and in frontal The agency is continuing to conduct
SafetyBeltSafe also stated that test data research to establish better neck injury
impact tests involving restraints such as air
from NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and bags and belts, we have concluded that this response and injury criteria for children.
Test Center indicated that tests with the dummy is suitable for both research and Research may show the presence of
dummy generated ‘‘[head] excursion compliance safety assessments. The dummy neck injury and a possible need for a
increases of from 2.1 to 4.5 inches in a is not only considerably more biofidelic than neck injury criterion in FMVSS No. 213.
booster with lap-shoulder belt. The its predecessor, the part 572 subpart I 6-year- If that occurs, a test dummy
likely reason for this is that the neck is old dummy, but it also has considerably incorporated into the standard that
not a true Hybrid III type neck, as it more extensive instrumentation to measure
offers improved biofidelity and neck
lacks the metal disks needed to limit its impact responses such as forces,
accelerations, moments, and deflections in instrumentation would prove useful.
bending.’’ The commenter was also Because we believe that the current
concerned about the dummy’s conducting tests to evaluate vehicle occupant
protection systems. neck on the HIII 6-year-old dummy
‘‘permanently flexed hips, which, provides improved biofidelity over the
unlike the new 10-year-old design, do The agency continues to believe that
current dummy and is suitable for
not allow a slouched position and may the performance of child restraint
compliance purposes, this final rule
inhibit submarining in non-optimal systems will be more thoroughly and
adopts the dummy into FMVSS No. 213
booster designs.’’ precisely assessed by use of the HIII
as proposed.
Ford Motor Company likewise stated dummy because of the dummy’s ii. Weighted 6-Year-Old Dummy. A
that the Hybrid III dummies are much enhanced biofidelity and extensive majority of commenters raised concerns
more likely to experience head-to-knee instrumentation. With regard to with the biofidelity of the weighted 6-
contacts than Hybrid II dummies, concerns about the dummy’s neck, it year-old-dummy, which is intended to
because of the more flexible ribs and should be noted that the Hybrid II model a 50th percentile 8-year-old
neck of the HIII dummies. Further, Ford dummy currently in use also does not child. IIHS and NTSB commented on
said that a 1984 study (Culver et al.) have the metal disks. Since the Hybrid the importance of height in measuring
showed that adult HIII dummy HIC III is more biomechanically based, we
readings were about twice those continue to believe that it provides a 11 The agency is aware of only one instance in
recorded in dummy head to cadaver more humanlike response than the which there was significant head-to-knee contact in
knee impacts. Further, Ford stated that Hybrid II version of the dummy. an FMVSS No. 213 test environment using a Hybrid
because the HIII 6-year-old dummy does Sled tests have shown the HIII 6-year- III dummy. In this case, a 6-year-old dummy was
tested in a backless belt-positioning booster. In the
not have the metal plates that segment old to be a suitable replacement for the test, the shoulder portion of the belt system slipped
and limit bending of the necks of the existing HII 6-year-old in FMVSS No. off the dummy’s shoulder. It is unclear what caused
HIII adult dummies, the HIII 6-year-old 213 compliance tests. None of the sled this to happen.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37645

seat belt fit and injury criteria, integrity of child restraints until such as a means of ballast to evaluate the
particularly head excursion. Both time as the Hybrid III 10-year-old structural integrity of the tested child
determined that the weighted dummy dummy became available. Evenflo also restraint. While the weighted dummy
failed to accurately represent the height supported using the weighted dummy to will not be instrumented to determine
of booster occupants. NTSB stated that measure head excursion. compliance, it will be instrumented to
the addition of weight to the dummy’s The agency agrees that the Hybrid III collect data for use in research.
spine and pelvis was not representative 10-year-old dummy, envisioned by Anton’s Law 13 directs the agency to
of weight distribution in an actual child. Anton’s Law, represents the long-term initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
Ford expressed concern that the solution to the issue of testing booster establish performance requirements for
weighting of the 6-year-old dummy seats certified for higher weights. child restraints, including booster seats,
could result in inaccurate output of the Development of the Hybrid III 10-year- for the restraint of children weighing
injury criteria. Ford expected the old dummy is proceeding as quickly as more than 50 lb. Through use of the
weighted dummy to show abnormally possible, but this dummy is not weighted 6-year-old dummy, the
high chest deflection and abnormally currently ready for use in compliance structural integrity of a CRS
low chest acceleration, and higher head tests. The agency is currently testing the recommended for children between 50
excursion. Ford was also concerned that Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to and 65 lb can be tested. NHTSA
the low relative mass of the lower determine its suitability for FMVSS No. recommends children to be placed in
extremities could reduce knee excursion 213 compliance testing. A notice booster seats until they are 8-years old,
compared to a more biofidelic dummy. proposing to incorporate this dummy or 57 inches tall. The weight of a 50th
Ford stated that adding mass to the into Part 572 for use in compliance percentile 8-year-old male is
spine and lengthening the lumbar spine testing is expected to be published in approximately 57 lb. The weight of a
might result in the weighted dummy not early 2004. 50th percentile 8-year, 9 month-old
submarining under conditions that Despite limited results showing a male is approximately 62 lb. Use of the
would cause a more biofidelic dummy general correlation between the testing 62 lb weighted dummy as ballast
to submarine. Public Citizen, Graco, and performance of the weighted 6-year-old ensures that booster seats certified up to
the Alliance commented that the dummy and the Hybrid III 6-year-old 65 lb will not structurally fail in a crash.
weighted dummy would not perform dummy, the agency is persuaded by the While several commenters suggested
the same as the 10-year-old dummy comments that the weighted dummy using alternative dummies as an interim
which NHTSA has been developing and should not be used for testing with full measure, none of the suggested
which was referenced in Public Law instrumentation. The weighted dummy alternatives are appropriate even for use
107–318 (Dec. 4, 2002; 116 Stat. would not perform the same as the 10- as ballast. NTSB recommended using
2772)(‘‘Anton’s Law’’).12 year-old dummy in development and it the European P-series 10-year-old
IIHS, ACTS, Public Citizen, the may not accurately represent an 8-year- dummy in a limited capacity to provide
Alliance, and GM stated that the lack of old child. IIHS stated that the weighted a better means of evaluating proper seat
biofidelity should preclude the use of dummy is too short to represent the belt fit and to enhance efforts to enact
the weighted dummy. Many tallest occupants for whom boosters are booster seat laws in the states. NHTSA
commenters urged the agency to recommended, noting that ‘‘[s]itting is not confident in the ability of the P-
develop the 10-year-old dummy as an height is an important factor in testing series dummy to uniformly load the
alternative. Public Citizen urged the booster seats because a poorly designed restraint system in a manner necessary
agency to move ahead with regulations booster may permit too much head for the evaluation of the booster seat,
in anticipation of the 10-year-old excursion for taller occupants. Weight even structurally. The P-series dummy
dummy’s future availability. NTSB is, at most, a secondary issue for the is designed with too many degrees of
suggested using the European 10-year- restraints because the vehicle belts, freedom, and its interaction with a
old dummy (P-series) as an interim which are not subject to testing under restraint system would be inconsistent.
measure. While acknowledging the this standard, restrain the inertia of AAP suggested using the Hybrid III
existence of problems with the P-series, booster seat occupants.’’ 5th percentile female to test child
NTSB stated that European dummy While the 0.7-inch increase in sitting restraints to allow regulation up to 80 lb
would better represent height and seat height achieved through the addition of in advance of the availability of the
belt fit. weights to the Hybrid III 6-year-old Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy. The
While raising concerns with dummy is comparable to that of a 50th weight of the Hybrid III 5th percentile
biofidelity, a number of commenters percentile 8-year-old child, the overall female dummy is 108 lb, 28 lb heavier
agreed that, if necessary, the weighted 6- weight and height, and consequently the than the maximum weight of a child
year-old dummy could be used in a weight distribution, are not. The 50th that the child restraint would be
limited capacity to test the structural percentile 8-year-old child is 50.5 certified for in compliance testing. The
inches tall, as compared to the 50th heavier weight of the 5th percentile
12 On December 4, 2002, Congress enacted Public percentile 6-year-old child which is 45.5 female dummy would not offer an
Law 107–318 (Anton’s Law) ‘‘to provide for the inches tall. The weight added to the 6-
improvement of the safety of child restraints in
accurate representation of an 8-year-old
passenger motor vehicles, and for other purposes.’’ year-old dummy is not distributed as it or even 10-year-old child.
Section 4 of Public Law 107–318 directed that— would normally be on a 50th percentile
(a) Not later than 24 months after the date of the 8-year-old, making injury measurements 3. Specific Issues Relating to the Use of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop suspect. the New Dummies in Standard No. 213
and evaluate an anthropomorphic test device that The agency agrees that the kinematics
simulates a 10-year old child for use in testing child
i. Seat Back Height Requirement.
restraints used in passenger motor vehicles. of the weighted 6-year-old dummy may S5.2.1.1 specifies that each child
(b) Within 1 year following the development and not be representative of the older child
evaluation carried out under subsection (a), the that it attempts to model and it could 13 Section 3 of Public Law 107–318 directs the

Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for potentially interact with the belt system Secretary of Transportation to consider whether to
the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device as include injury performance criteria for child
developed under subsection (a). differently than a dummy developed to restraints, including booster seats and other
Other provisions relating to child restraint represent an 8-year-old child. Therefore, products for use in passenger motor vehicles for the
performance were also included in the statute. the weighted dummy will be used only restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37646 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

restraint system shall provide head In response to Graco, NHTSA agrees evaluated in the agency’s ease-of-use
restraint by means of a continuous seat that S5.2.1.1 and S5.1.3.2 both provide ratings program were certified for
back. Subsection (a) of S5.2.1.1 specifies protection to a rear-facing child in a children weighing up to 22 lb and thus
that for child restraints recommended frontal impact by limiting occupant already are manufactured with 20-inch
for use by children weighing less than excursion outside of the confines of the seat backs.
20 lb, the height of the seat back must restraint system. However, the agency is This final rule does not require
be not less than 18 inches. If a restraint unable to conclude that the two manufacturers to recommend on the
were recommended for children requirements serve the same safety need labels accompanying infant restraints
weighing 20 to 40 lb, the seat back for rear-facing restraints. S5.2.1.1 that the restraints are recommended for
height must be not less than 20 inches. specifies seat back height and width infants up to 22 lb, but provides the
Some rear-facing infant car seat/ requirements and also limits how far incentive for them to do so. Because the
carriers, which are designed with a rearward the test dummy’s head may 22-lb CRABI will be the test instrument
handle for toting the infant outside of rotate during dynamic testing. These used in compliance tests of the infant
the vehicle, are recommended for use requirements may provide protection in seats, and because under S5.2.1.1(a) the
with infants weighing only up to 20 lb. dynamic conditions other than that infant seats must have a minimum seat
Under current S5.2.1.1, these restraints replicated by the Standard No. 213 sled back of 20 inches, the agency believes
(recommended for children up to 20 lb) test. A child restraint might be able to that manufacturers will certify most if
must have a seat back of a height of not meet S5.1.3.2 with a seat back that is not all infant restraints to 22 lb.
less than 18 inches. This final rule lower or narrower than that specified by The agency is providing for a 2-year
amends S5.2.1.1 to require these S5.2.1.1. Deleting S5.2.1.1’s leadtime for this change. Evenflo stated
restraints to have a seat back height of requirements for rear-facing restraints that several models of infant-only
not less than 20 inches. could reduce some of the current restraints do not have backs high
The agency proposed to use the protections afforded by child restraints. enough to support the CRABI 12-month-
CRABI dummy in place of the 9-month- Thus, the agency declines to delete old dummy and will thus have to be
old dummy in all tests in which the S5.2.1.1. redesigned. Evenflo suggested that
latter dummy is used, including tests of At the same time, however, the replacement of the 9-month-old dummy
rear-facing infant car seat/carriers. Thus, agency has concluded that with the by the CRABI in 4 years would help
it was proposed that the CRABI (at 22 incorporation of the CRABI dummy into minimize the financial impact to child
lb) would be used to test car seat/ the standard, amendments to S5.2.1.1 restraint manufacturers. JPMA suggested
carriers. Comments were requested on are in order. Information indicates that a 3 year leadtime. NHTSA declines to
the appropriateness of using the CRABI infants should be positioned rear-facing provide such long leadtimes suggested
dummy to test infant car seat/carriers until at least 12-months old, until such by Evenflo and JPMA because there
time their neck and muscular structure could be safety benefits associated with
recommended for children up to 20 lb,
are developed to more adequately keeping more infants rear-facing until
when the 22-lb dummy is heavier than
support their head. If rear-facing infant they are at least 12-months old, which
the children recommended for the
seats were recommended for use with could result from the change to the
restraints. Comments were requested on
an infant until the infant weighs 22 lb, CRABI and to S5.2.1.1 of Standard No.
whether all infant car seat/carriers have
there is a greater likelihood that parents 213. The short deadlines of the TREAD
back supports that are high enough to
will keep their infants in the rear-facing Act also indicate Congress’s interest in
support the CRABI.
restraint until the infant reaches or is having the standard be upgraded as
No commenter opposed the use of the
quickly as possible. The 2-year leadtime
CRABI in place of the 9-month old closer to reaching 12 months of age than
NHTSA is providing balances the safety
dummy, but some issues were raised if the restraint were only recommended
benefits with the need for some child
about possible effects of using the for infants up to 20 lb. (The agency
restraint manufacturers to modify some
dummy to test infant seats. Graco believes that many infants are
of their seats.
suggested that S5.2.1.1 could be deleted, positioned forward-facing in a toddler ii. Padding Requirement. The agency
for lack of a safety need, if Standard No. restraint after being transitioned out of asked for comment on deleting S5.2.3,
213 were amended to specify use of the a rear-facing car seat/carrier, and that which specifies a padding requirement
CRABI dummy to assess the ability of a many of these infants are not for child restraints used by children
rear-facing restraint to limit the developmentally ready to be forward- weighing less than 22 lb. The agency
rearward excursion of the dummy in facing in the vehicle.) had specified the requirement (whose
Standard No. 213’s dynamic test The agency is amending S5.2.1.1(a) to thickness and static compression
(S5.1.3.2).14 Evenflo stated that several encourage the production of rear-facing specifications are compliance-tested
infant-only restraints do not have backs infant car seat/carriers that are statically) because there was no
high enough to support the CRABI 12- recommended for use by infants up to instrumented infant test dummy
month-old dummy. The commenter 12 months in age. The agency is available at the time (1979) the
suggested that replacement of the 9- amending the table in S5.2.1.1(a) such requirement was adopted. The agency’s
month-old dummy by the CRABI in 4 that infant car seat/carriers must have a goal was to establish dynamic test
years would help minimize the financial minimum seat back height of 20 requirements for infant restraints, so
impact to child restraint manufacturers. inches.15 The effect of this is to require that the total energy absorption
all rear-facing infant restraints to be capability of the padding and
14 Under S7.1(c) of Standard No. 213, child large enough for an average 12-month- underlying structure could be measured.
restraints recommended for use by children old. As a practical matter, this is not a (44 FR 72131, 72135). Graco and
weighing 22 to 27 lb are tested with the 3-year-old drastic change. Seventy-five percent of
(33 lb) dummy. Graco suggested that a weighted Xportation supported deleting S5.2.3.
CRABI 12-month-old or an 18-month-old dummy be the infant-only seats that have been Since today’s final rule incorporates use
used instead of the 3-year-old dummy. Given the of the instrumented CRABI 12-month-
agency’s resources and the safety issues before the 15 More specifically, the section is amended to

agency, NHTSA will not be undertaking rulemaking specify that restraints certified for children
old dummy for use in testing restraints
at this time on the weighted CRABI or on an 18- weighing less than 40 lb must have a minimum seat recommended for children under 22 lb,
month-old dummy. back height of 20 inches. we are deleting S5.2.3, as proposed.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37647

4. Leadtime incorporating the dummy into 49 CFR Hybrid II 3 year-old, weighing 33 lb, has
The agency proposed in the NPRM part 572 is not yet completed. The proven efficient at testing child restraint
that manufacturers be provided two NPRM was published May 7, 2003; 68 systems certified with a maximum
years of leadtime, after publication of a FR 24417. The rulemaking should be weight of 40 lb.
final rule, before specifying the use of completed with sufficient time to allow However, the weighted 6-year-old
the CRABI and Hybrid III dummies in manufacturers to certify their restraints dummy is not sufficient to assess the
compliance tests. The NPRM proposed to Standard No. 213 by the two-year dynamic performance of a child
using the weighted 6-year-old dummy compliance date. restraint in restraining an 80-lb child,
in compliance tests 180 days after and as stated above, use of an
d. Application of the Standard alternative dummy to allow increasing
publication of a final rule. JPMA
Most commenters supported the limit to 80 lb is not appropriate. The
supported the addition of the new
increasing the weight limit in the agency is not confident in the ability of
dummies to the standard, provided that
definition of ‘‘child restraint system’’ the European P-series 10-year-old
the agency gives ‘‘a phase in of at least
above the current 50 lb. The only dummy to uniformly load the restraint,
three years from the issuance of the final
commenter opposed to any increase was and the Hybrid III 5th percentile female
rule * * * to avoid costly recertification
the Automotive Coalition for Traffic is 35 percent heavier than the suggested
requirements for existing seats, and to
Safety, because of concern with the maximum weight of 80 lb.
avoid the possible elimination of some
weighted 6-year-old dummy. Of those For the aforementioned reasons,
current seats from the marketplace.’’
supporting an increase, a majority NHTSA is increasing the reference to
JPMA stated that because of
supported increasing the weight to 65 lb the weight limit in the definition of
dimensional differences between the
based on the use of the weighted 6-year- ‘‘child restraint system’’ from 50 lb to 65
proposed CRABI 12-month-old and the
old dummy, with future amendments lb. This amendment, effective in 180
9-month-old dummy currently used to
increasing the weight to 80 lb upon the days, affects primarily manufacturers of
test infant-only child restraints, the
introduction of the 10-year-old dummy. child restraints recommended for older
commenter believed that the use of the
Advocates stated that it would support children, i.e., booster seat and harness
CRABI dummy will likely result in the
increasing the limit to 65 lb upon manufacturers. The agency does not
elimination of current infant-only child
showing that the weighted 6-year-old anticipate that manufacturers will have
restraints. JPMA stated that ‘‘millions of
dummy (62 lb) is sufficient to assess to redesign their restraints to certify
dollars of tooling and development
child restraint use with children compliance using the weighted 6-year-
testing will be rendered worthless’’ by
weighing up to 65 lb. Graco suggested old dummy. However, the rulemaking to
incorporating the new dummies and
that the agency should defer increasing incorporate the weighted 6-year-old
that ‘‘[m]anufacturers should be given a
the limit to the time the 10-year-old dummy into part 572 is not complete, so
longer lead time before having to endure
dummy is available. the agency is specifying that compliance
the several financial consequences of Several commenters did not support testing with the weighted dummy will
these changes.’’ 16 Evenflo commented an intermediate level of 65 lb and not begin for two years. Manufacturers
that the agency ‘‘must recognize that the preferred amending the standard now to are permitted the option of voluntarily
use of the new dummies will have a specify the application to restraints using the weighted dummy prior to the
significant affect [sic] on manufacturers’ recommended for children up to 80 lb. mandatory compliance date.
test costs, which will ultimately be Ms. Bidez supported incorporating the Several comments were submitted on
reflected in the price of child 10-year-old dummy in its current form whether manufacturers should be
restraints.’’ and amending the weight limit to reflect prohibited from recommending their
The agency is providing for a 2-year the 80 lb weight of the 10-year-old seats for children of weights higher than
leadtime for the changeover to the new dummy. AAP recommended using the the heaviest dummy used to test the
dummies. As explained above, the 5th percentile female to allow regulation restraint. Consumer Union stated that
agency believes there are safety benefits up to 80 lb in advance of the 10-year- the agency should limit manufacturers’
associated with keeping more infants old dummy. E-Z-On believed that the ability to advertise child restraint
rear-facing until they are at least 12- limit should be extended to 80 lb, and weight maximums only to the weight of
months old, which could result from the that costs to vehicle and child restraint the heaviest dummy used for its
change to the CRABI and to S5.2.1.1 of manufacturers to provide stronger certification testing. Alternatively ,
Standard No. 213. At the same time, the anchorages and hardware would be Consumer Union stated that the agency
two year leadtime is provided to lessen minimal. should develop dummies that are at the
the cost impacts of the rule on The agency agrees with commenters maximum weight advertised for the
manufacturers’ testing costs (retesting in that the weight limit in the definition restraint, or require the addition of
current child restraints on the new seat of ‘‘child restraint system’’ should be ballast weights to existing test dummies.
assembly using the new dummies, and increased above 50 lb. While the In contrast, TraumaLink believed that
at test speeds closer to 30 mph) and weighted 6-year-old dummy injury manufacturers should be permitted to
possible retooling costs. measurement reliability may not be recommend child restraints at weights
NHTSA believes there also are safety sufficient for compliance testing, the above that of the heaviest dummy used
benefits to testing the structural dummy is suitable for testing the to test the restraint. TraumaLink stated
integrity of child restraints structural integrity of child restraints up that there was no field data to indicate
recommended for children weighing to 65 lb. Use of the weighted dummy a problem with convertible restraints
from 50 to 65 lb. However, an effective provides an interim weight limit in (typically recommended for children up
date short of approximately two years is advance of the Hybrid III 10-year-old to 40 lb) which have been tested with
not provided for use of the weighted dummy. The agency is confident in the a 33 lb dummy (the Hybrid II 3-year-
dummy because the rulemaking ability of the 62-lb-weighted dummy to old). Limiting the regulation based on
16 The commenter supported the proposal in the
test restraints certified up to 65 lb. the heaviest dummy, TraumaLink
NPRM of allowing manufacturers the option of
There will be only a 3-lb difference continued, would place artificial limits
using the new dummies before the mandatory between the weighted dummy and the on the protections afforded children.
compliance date of the standard. maximum certification weight. The Similarly, AAP opposed limiting a

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37648 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturer’s ability to recommend a e. Injury Criteria criteria limits stated in FMVSS No. 213.
child restraint for a weight above that of Because chest deflection and Nij limits
1. Post-NPRM Testing
the heaviest dummy used to test the are not currently specified in FMVSS
restraint. AAP stated that such a i. JPMA. In its comment to the NPRM, No. 213, the only charts provided are for
restriction could mislead parents into JPMA stated that it had conducted a the proposed criteria limits.
thinking that children should use seat series of 80 sled tests at Veridian NHTSA testing performed at PAX and
Engineering in response to the proposal, VRTC, described in the NPRM, resulted
belts once the child is heavier than 62
to try to understand how the proposed in dummy responses that were generally
lb, when in fact, most children do not
dummies performed compared to the within the injury limits proposed in the
fit seat belts until a much heavier dummies currently in use. The tests also NPRM, with the exception of Nij. (While
weight. evaluated the proposed changes to the acceptable Nij readings were found in
In a rulemaking amending FMVSS standard bench seat, as well as the tests using the Hybrid III 3-year-old
No. 213 to incorporate several test proposed injury criteria. JPMA dummy, there were widespread failures
dummies into the standard (61 FR described its test plan as including all in both rear- and forward-facing tests
30827; June 18, 1996), NHTSA test modes for all of the proposed using the CRABI 12-month old dummy
responded to Consumer’s Union (CU) dummies with representative samples of and each of four tests with the Hybrid
belief, expressed during that all types of child restraint/harness III 6-year-old dummy.) However, the test
rulemaking, that restraints (e.g., combinations and installation methods, results presented by JPMA were quite
convertible child seats) should not be including lap belt only, lap/shoulder different. JPMA’s testing, using the
permitted to be recommended for belt, and LATCH. JPMA acknowledged revised test seat assembly and new
children weighing more than the largest that: ‘‘While a total of 80 tests were dummies as NHTSA tested, but across a
conducted, this series only begins to wider variety of child restraint types,
test dummy used to test the restraint
explore the results of the proposed showed very mixed results. In many
(e.g., 33 lb). The agency determined that
changes and does not allow analysis of instances, the measured injury
such an approach was unnecessarily the net effect of each change, nor does parameters either exceeded or
restrictive, given that there has been no it provide enough history to define the marginally passed the scaled injury
showing that the wider array of potential variability in test results limits proposed in the NPRM. Further,
dummies incorporated into Standard which could occur. Much more testing there were many JPMA tests that
No. 213 by that rulemaking were is required to define the new effect of resulted in either failing or marginal
insufficient surrogates for the children each change and the potential variation results when using the existing injury
for whom the restraints are which can have a significant impact on criteria. This raised questions regarding
recommended. The agency also believed design and ability to define compliance the combined effect of the changes to
that CU’s suggestion could have margins.’’ the test seat assembly, incorporation of
unintended safety consequences, ii. NHTSA Series I and II. PAX the new dummies, and use of the scaled
because it would have the effect of conducted a series of dynamic sled tests injury criteria limits together.
forcing young children out of child for NHTSA to evaluate the performance iv. NHTSA Series III. In an effort to
restraints specifically designed for them of various child restraints on the revised determine if the use of varying restraint
(typically 20 to 40 lb) and into restraints test seat assembly. The tests used the types in the JPMA testing (as opposed
that may not be appropriate for their CRABI and Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old to NHTSA’s use of 5-point harness
size, i.e., booster seats for a 3-year-old or dummies to evaluate whether these restraints only) could be identified as
the vehicle’s belt systems. The agency dummies could meet the proposed the predominant factor in explaining the
scaled HIC, chest injury limits and Nij disparity between the JPMA and
believed that while it might be
measures. Time and resource NHTSA test results, NHTSA conducted
hypothetically possible that a restraint
considerations limited the testing to 5- a third series of sled tests. These tests
that passed FMVSS No. 213 when tested point harness rear-facing infant seats, were performed at VRTC, and attempted
with a dummy could fail when convertible safety seats, and belt- to closely parallel the testing performed
restraining a child weighing slightly positioning seats. Restraints were by JPMA. In addition to a number of
more than the dummy, on balance, the evaluated while installed using a lap additional 5-point harness restraints,
possibility of such a failure is belt, a lap/shoulder belt, and the NHTSA also tested forward-facing
outweighed by the safety risk of forcing LATCH system. HIC measurements were convertible overhead shield child
children into restraints that might not obtained, but testing problems arose restraints, and shield-type boosters both
adequately restrain them. with respect to the neck injury and with and without the shield.
NHTSA reaffirms the conclusions chest deflection data. Because of these A total of 20 additional tests were
reached in that rulemaking and concurs problems, NHTSA conducted a second conducted in this third series of sled
with the views of TraumaLink and AAP series of dynamic sled tests at VRTC to tests. The results of this series of sled
that information on tests with current replicate the tests performed at PAX tests more closely paralleled those
test dummies does not indicate a need with the 3- and 6-year-old dummies. found in the JPMA tests, in that a wider
These tests were conducted using the range of failing and marginal test results
to restrict recommending child
same type of child restraints. were seen as compared to the
restraints for children weighing more iii. Results of JPMA and NHTSA predominately passing results seen in
than the test dummies used to test the Series I and II. The charts provided in the PAX test series. The testing of 5-
restraint. As to CU’s suggestion for a docket submission titled ‘‘Comparison point harness restraints at PAX resulted
developing dummies that reach the of PAX/VRTC and JPMA Sled Tests’’ in injury values that were
maximum weight recommended for a summarizes the results of the testing predominately within the established or
restraint or requiring the addition of performed by both NHTSA and by proposed limits (with the exception of
ballast weights to existing dummies, JPMA. For HIC and chest acceleration, Nij). However, the VRTC Series III tests
this suggestion is beyond the scope of results are presented for both the showed a wider variation in both
the present rulemaking. proposed scaled injury limits and for marginal and failing responses that
the same tests using the existing injury appear to be a result of the restraint type

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37649

that was tested, even though all restraint 208 criteria in FMVSS No. 213 if the indicate that current child restraints
types meet the current FMVSS No. 213 agency were to specify a ‘‘more realistic generally do not meet the proposed
requirements and appear to be equally crash pulse for FMVSS No. 213, such as limits. There are several reasons why
effective based upon field studies. Not the one contained in the FMVSS No. this was a concern for the agency. First
all VRTC results were similar to those 208 sled test.’’ Graco questioned why and foremost, child restraints are
of JPMA, however, as the HIC15 results the scaled HIC values would be applied currently highly effective in reducing
for the CRABI dummy were typically to in-position child restraint testing if the likelihood of death and/or serious
better in the VRTC tests than in the they were derived from out-of-position injury in motor vehicle crashes. The
JPMA tests. Overall, the VRTC follow-on occupant airbag testing. Graco believed agency was unable to identify a safety
tests did confirm the wider range of test that the values might not be ‘‘applicable problem that the scaled injury limits of
results found in the JPMA testing. The to child restraint testing with a 213-style FMVSS No. 208 would remedy.
follow-on testing results can be found in pulse.’’ The commenter stated that it Second, it is unknown what
the docket. saw minimal benefit to child passenger modifications to child restraints would
safety from using the proposed injury be necessary for the restraints to meet
2. Comments and Conclusions the proposed injury limits. Commenters
criteria. It was concerned that some
i. Head Injury Criterion (HIC). The seats that have historically performed did not provide information on how
agency received widely divergent well in the real world and in child restraints that failed to meet the
comments on the proposal to limit compliance testing would fail the new proposed Nij and other limits could be
measurement of HIC to 15 milliseconds criteria. modified to meet the criteria. Assuming
and to use the injury criteria of Standard Response: This final rule retains the that the restraints could be redesigned
No. 208 that were scaled for children. existing FMVSS No. 213 HIC threshold to meet the proposed injury limits, there
The Alliance, UMTRI and of 1000 for the CRABI 12-month-old and would likely be costs associated with
SafetyBeltSafe supported the use of a 15 Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old dummies. the redesign which would result in
ms limit on the head injury criterion Since the TREAD Act directed increases in the price of the restraints.
(HIC) limit as a more realistic way to NHTSA to consider adopting the scaled As noted above in section IV of this
assess head and brain injury, with the injury criteria adopted by the May 2000 preamble, the agency considers the
lower HIC values proposed for each final rule on advanced air bags, NHTSA consumer acceptance of cost increases
dummy. In contrast, Advocates stated proposed that the HIC limits of 39015, to child restraints (an already highly-
that it was ‘‘reluctant to change the 57015 and 70015 be incorporated into effective item of safety equipment) in
duration of HIC measurement from 36 FMVSS No. 213 for tests with the determining the net safety effects of
ms to 15 ms without more definitive CRABI 12-month-, and Hybrid III 3- and changes to the child restraint standard.
evidence that this change would not 6-year-old dummies, respectively. In balancing the effects of meeting the
inhibit accurate HIC measurements However, NHTSA believed that it scaled injury criteria against the
associated with non-contact head should take a cautious approach in possible impacts on the price of
injuries.’’ Advocates suggested that modifying the head injury tolerance restraints, the agency determined that
NHTSA should scale the injury level set by the HIC requirement. The the net effect on safety could be negative
assessment reference values for children agency requested comments on issues in this instance because of the minimal
even if the agency decides not to related to the proposed injury criteria, benefits of such a change, weighed
shorten the HIC measurement duration, such as on what risk levels are against the delayed replacement of old
to ‘‘take into account the different acceptable, what factors should be restraints by current owners or non-
anatomy of children.’’ Ford stated that, considered in selecting performance purchase by non-owners. For these
while the purpose of the 15 ms limit on limits and whether the same limits as in reasons, in accordance with the TREAD
the HIC calculation interval is to try to FMVSS No. 208 should be established Act, we have considered whether to
differentiate between HICs caused by for the child restraint standard. The apply scaled injury criteria performance
hard head contacts and non-contact agency noted that the two standards levels developed for FMVSS No. 208 to
HICs due to head whipping, the 15 ms address different sources of potential child restraints and have determined it
HIC measurement should not be used to harm to children. The injury criteria for would not be prudent to do so.
differentiate between non-contact and children in FMVSS No. 208 are NHTSA is adopting HIC36 with a limit
‘‘chance contact’’ of the dummy’s head intended to minimize the risk from a of 1000 for all tests with the Hybrid III
with the dummy’s knees. deploying air bag (ensuring that the air and CRABI dummies. This final rule
JPMA stated that it was willing to bag deploys in a manner much less does not adopt the 15 ms window that
consider supporting a 15 ms limit likely to cause serious or fatal injury to was proposed in the NPRM. This is
(HIC15), if the agency can undertake out-of-position occupants). The injury because the shorter time interval would
research to assure that there will not be criteria in FMVSS No. 213 are intended likely substantially reduce the values
unintended consequences from to limit the severity of forces imposed calculated for the HIC in compliance
countermeasures needed to meet HIC15. on a child during a crash. Child tests. Further, as discussed later in this
However, JPMA did not support the restraints meeting these criteria have section, NHTSA is not incorporating a
other proposed new injury criteria, worked effectively to maintain high neck injury criterion into FMVSS No.
including the scaled HIC values. The levels of performance in crashes. 213. A 36 ms time interval to measure
commenter stated that the tests of child Because the injury criteria of the HIC allows the HIC measurement in
restraints it conducted with the standards are intended to minimize FMVSS No. 213 to capture risk of neck
proposed CRABI and Hybrid III risks from different injury sources, the injury indirectly. Given that the agency
dummies produced injury reference agency stated that it might be reasonable is declining to adopt a neck injury
values that exceeded the proposed to have non-identical criteria. criterion at this time, the longer
limits, which the commenter said is a In this final rule, NHTSA has decided measurement window associated with
concern given the high level of against incorporating the scaled injury HIC36, as opposed to HIC15, will provide
effectiveness of current child restraints. limits used in FMVSS No. 208 because reasonable assurances that a child’s
The commenter suggested that it might the data obtained from the JPMA and neck will not be subjected to excessive
be more feasible to use the FMVSS No. NHTSA (series III) test programs forces in a crash. The 36 ms time

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37650 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

interval to measure HIC is consistent acceleration limit was set as a criterion in testing with the Hybrid III
with the injury threshold used in reasonable head injury threshold by the dummy family and using the existing
FMVSS No. 208 for the Hybrid III 50th originators of the ‘‘Wayne State criterion, HICunlimited, in testing with the
percentile dummy prior to the Tolerance Curve’’, which was used in Hybrid II family. The following tables
incorporation of scaled injury limits and the development of the HIC calculation. outline the results of comparison tests
Nij for advanced air bags. The change to a 36 millisecond time performed on identical child restraints,
Limiting the duration over which HIC measurement for HIC will not using the FMVSS No. 213 proposed
is calculated to a maximum of 36 ms, necessarily result in lower HIC values in (Table 8) and existing seat assemblies
while limiting HIC to 1000, assures that compliance testing because of the (Table 9), with both Hybrid III and
the acceleration level of the child’s head changeover in this rulemaking to the
Hybrid II 3-year-old dummies.
will not exceed 60 g’s for any period new dummy family. NHTSA compared
greater than 36 ms. The 60 g the differences between using the HIC36

TABLE 8.—COMPARISON TESTS OF 3-YEAR-OLD HYBRID III AND HYBRID II DUMMIES ON PROPOSED SEAT ASSEMBLY
[Hybrid III HIC36 vs Hybrid II HICUnlimited 3-Year-Old Child Dummy (Tested Using with The NPRM Proposed Seat Assembly)]

Hybrid III* Hybrid III Trend


HIC36 HICUnlimited

Cosco Touriva Convertible, Lap Belt, No Tether ............. ∼434 703 Hybird III HIC36 Less than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
Century Accel Convertible, Lap Belt, No Tether .............. ∼344 627 Hybird III HIC36 Less than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
Century Breverra Hybrid, Lap Belt, No Tether ................. ∼521 670 Hybird III HIC36 Less than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
Cosco HB Booster Hybrid, Lap Belt, No Tether ............... ∼684 446 Hybird III HIC36 Greater than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
* HIC36 were not calculated, the relationship HIC36 = 0.97
* HICUnlimited was used to approximate HIC36.

TABLE 9.—COMPARISON TESTS OF 3-YEAR-OLD HYBRID III AND HYBRID II DUMMIES ON EXISTING SEAT ASSEMBLY
[Hybrid III HIC36 vs Hybrid II HICUnlimited 3-Year-Old Child Dummy (Tested Using Existing FMVSS No. 213 Seat Assembly)]

Hybrid III Hybrid II Trend


HIC36 HICUnlimited

FF Convertible, Lap Belt ................................................... 671 385


FF Convertible, Lap Belt ................................................... .................... 479
FF Convertible, Lap Belt ................................................... .................... 424
Average ...................................................................... 671 429 Hybird III HIC36 Greater than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
FF Convertible, Lap and Tether ....................................... 303 387
FF Convertible, Lap and Tether ....................................... 362 396
Average ...................................................................... 333 392 Hybird III HIC36 Less than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
FF Convertible, LATCH .................................................... 292 281
FF Convertible, LATCH .................................................... 518 336
Average ...................................................................... 408 309 Hybird III HIC36 Greater than Hybrid II HICUnlimited.
FF Hybrid, Lap and Tether ............................................... 452 392
FF Hybrid, Lap and Tether ............................................... 439 501
Average ...................................................................... 446 447 =

In some of the tests Hybrid III HIC36 scaled for children and incorporated ‘‘We are concerned about the tradeoff
results were higher, and in other tests into FMVSS No. 208. The Alliance between including these more
the HII HICUnlimited results were higher. supported the proposals. Ms. Bidez restrictive thoracic criteria and reducing
On the other hand, in a limited number supported the proposed chest deflection the overall protection of the head
of tests with the 6-year-old dummies, criteria, stating that ‘‘although no through increased head excursions and
the Hybrid III HIC36 numbers were significant reports of chest injury in accelerations.’’ These concerns were
higher. All in all, the agency determined children have yet occurred, prudence echoed by UMTRI, which stated that the
that the data are inconclusive as to any and systems engineering dictates [sic] relationship between the chest
differences in how the Hybrid II and that excessive chest deflection be deceleration and deflection limits and
Hybrid III dummies measure HIC. In any monitored to prevent the introduction of field injuries under the type of loading
event, the agency’s tests of child ‘‘new’’ injury mechanisms in the quest simulated in FMVSS No. 213 are not
restraints has not found any difference to prevent other injury mechanisms well established. ‘‘Introducing these
between HICUnlimited and HIC36 in terms with improved restraint design.’’ injury criteria now [including neck
of compliance passage rates. Thus, the JPMA opposed the proposed chest injury] could lead to counterproductive
agency has concluded that the impact injury criteria for the reasons explained child restraint designs because many
on child restraint performance relating in the preceding section. TraumaLink restraints that perform well in the field,
to the change to HIC36 will be also opposed incorporation of the particularly booster seats, are likely to
insignificant. proposed chest deflection and reduced exceed the new injury tolerance
ii. Chest Injury Criteria. Some chest acceleration limits, because measures.’’
commenters supported while others according to data it has collected in its SafetyBeltSafe also opposed the
opposed the proposals to adopt a new study, ‘‘These types of injuries do not proposed chest injury criteria. It
chest deflection criterion and to adopt occur in children in [child restraint expressed concern that the new seat
the chest acceleration limits that were systems].’’ TraumaLink further stated: bench assembly has an added slope to

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37651

the seat cushion that results in a ‘‘harder requirements, the agency is concerned JPMA, SafetyBeltSafe, UMTRI,
stop as the restraint bottom[s] out about the possibility of those revised TraumaLink and others did not support
against the plywood platform.’’ The designs compromising other aspects of adopting the proposed Nij criterion at
commenter was concerned that, if the the occupant’s injury protection. this time. SafetyBeltSafe believed that
chest acceleration limit were reduced, The data presented by JPMA, and to neither Nij as proposed nor Nij with a
child restraints that are already close to a lesser degree, the follow-on tests limit on tension should be used as a
the current limit could fail the test with conducted at VRTC, show difficulty for compliance criterion unless these are
no change in how they actually perform current restraints to meet the scaled proven to be useful predictors of child
in the field. ‘‘To counteract this chest criteria, and also show problems neck injury. UMTRI believed that Nij
possibility [of failing the test], a for certain restraint types to meet the should not be incorporated at this time
manufacturer could soften the system, existing requirements with the revised because the relationship between the
allowing more head excursion (due test seat assembly and new dummies. criterion and real-world injuries ‘‘under
again to the geometry change), to keep Redesigning the restraints to meet the the type of loading simulated by FMVSS
the chest acceleration in check. This requirements, assuming such redesign is 213 are [sic] not well established.’’ The
would obviously be counterproductive practicable, would involve a cost Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
to child safety.’’ In addition, increase to manufacturers, which would (IIHS) was concerned that studies of
SafetyBeltSafe believed that the be passed on to consumers. The agency real-world crashes indicate that neck
proposed chest deflection limit ‘‘does does not believe that the cost increase injuries due to inertial forces appear to
not relate to any evident injury among is justified in this instance, and is be rare, yet, the commenter stated, it is
restrained child passengers’’ and thus concerned about the possible effect the not clear how child restraints could be
would not advance child safety. JPMA, cost increase could have on the better designed to lower neck injury
UMTRI and SafetyBeltSafe suggested purchase and use of child restraints. For measures. Ford stated that, in its sled
that the agency collect data on chest the aforementioned reasons, we tests of booster seats, ‘‘Upper neck
deflection to establish a database that conclude that it is not in the interest of tensions and extension moments above
could be used to evaluate these safety to adopt the chest injury criteria the FMVSS 208 criteria were also
measures more in the future. developed for FMVSS No. 208 into routinely measured. Every test exceeded
Ford stated that in its sled tests of FMVSS No. 213. at least one of the Nij limits.’’
booster seats using the Hybrid III six- TraumaLink was concerned about the
iii. Neck. Virtually all parties
year-old dummy and the FMVSS No. state of knowledge about pediatric neck
213 sled pulse, none of the tested commenting directly on this aspect of
the proposal opposed the modified Nij injury and suggested that not enough
boosters could be certified as meeting was known to proceed at this time. The
the proposed limits. ‘‘Boosters that neck criterion (modified from the
criterion in FMVSS No. 208 in that the commenter stated that data on the
showed good shoulder belt fit routinely biomechanical response of the pediatric
measured chest acceleration at or near limits on axial force were excluded).
The Alliance stated that it believes that neck to trauma are severely limited and
the 60 g limit and chest deflection very as a result, the neck of current child
near the 40 mm limit. Dummy chest serious neck injuries in child restraints
are most likely caused by excessive dummies may not be representative of
values were sometimes below the the real child. The commenter also
compliance limit, but were seldom far upper neck tension, and not by
exceeding the proposed Nij criterion. believed that efforts to include pediatric
enough below the limit to provide a neck tolerance levels in regulatory
reasonable compliance margin.’’ The The commenter thus suggested the
agency should specify neck tension and efforts are scientifically premature.
commenter believed that boosters do TraumaLink further stated:
improve child safety when used compression limits, as follows, when
properly, and that ‘‘if dynamic testing of testing with the CRABI 12-month-, the More research is needed to understand the
boosters is continued, the test procedure HIII three-year- and the HIII six-year-old movement of the child’s neck in traumatic
dummies, respectively: 780, 1430 and events and the likelihood for injury before
needs a major overhaul to effectively enacting regulatory standards, but our results
differentiate between acceptable and 1890 N for peak tension; and 960, 1380
and 1820 N for peak compression. The indicate that this work is of paramount
unacceptable designs.’’ importance. We believe that this research
Response: This final rule does not Alliance further stated, however, that may reveal the importance of neck tension
adopt the proposed chest injury criteria applying these limits while maintaining and suggest that exclusion of limits on peak
relating to acceleration and deflection. the current sled pulse is likely to make tension in the test procedure is not
A safety need for adopting the proposal compliance with the requirements appropriate. Therefore, we feel that the neck
has not been established. NHTSA is impossible or possible only with injury measures should be calculated but not
persuaded by the commenters that there substantial cost increases. The used in the pass/fail criteria in the FMVSS
are not sufficient data that demonstrate commenter suggested that NHTSA 213 test to build the fund of knowledge
that children have been seriously modify the crash pulse ‘‘to make it more needed to further refine the injury measure.
injured due to excessive chest representative of the current crash Similarly, commenters JPMA,
acceleration or deflection in current environment’’ instead of eliminating SafetyBeltSafe, UMTRI and the IIHS
restraint designs. Historically, the neck tension. Ms. Bidez stated that ‘‘Nij suggested that more research is needed
majority of child injuries are to the head does not appear to predict cervical on neck injury among restrained
as opposed to the chest. The agency is distraction injuries in children * * *.’’ children. Some of these suggested that
concerned about possible negative The commenter suggested that ‘‘the NHTSA measure neck force and
effects of adopting the proposed chest duration of the axial distraction load as moment parameters during compliance
injury criteria on increased head influenced by the presence or absence of tests to become familiar with the range
excursion, as noted by SafetyBeltSafe. adequate torso restraint appears to be a of results.
Further, not enough is known about the more valid predictor of (spinal cord Response: The agency has decided not
countermeasures that could be injury without radiographic to incorporate Nij into FMVSS No. 213
employed to meet the proposed criteria. abnormality) SCIWORA injuries among compliance tests at this time. Both
If child restraint manufacturers were to children in the absence of head NHTSA and JPMA testing has clearly
redesign their restraints to meet such contact.’’ demonstrated that existing child

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37652 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

restraints that have historically does not anticipate any lives saved or test) with the option it has selected
performed very well in the field cannot injuries avoided from the amendment. responding to that noncompliance by
meet the proposed neck injury limits in b. This final rule provides for about a maintaining that its products comply
the majority of test cases. Neither 2-year effective date for the requirement with a different option for which the
NHTSA nor child restraint to use the new CRABI and Hybrid III agency has not conducted a compliance
manufacturers have identified any dummies in compliance tests (the test. To ensure that the agency will not
countermeasures that could be effective date for the change will be be asked to conduct multiple
incorporated into existing designs that August 1, 2005). The agency does not compliance tests, first for one
would promote compliance with the expect that the changes to the dummies compliance option, then for another,
proposed requirements. Further, will have a significant effect on the this rule requires manufacturers to
NHTSA agrees that there is a lack of results of compliance tests, with the select the option by the time it certifies
injury data to demonstrate a need to exception of some infant-only car seat/ the child restraint system and prohibits
incorporate neck injury criteria at this carriers. However, restraint them from thereafter selecting a
time. As discussed in the section manufacturers will likely have to different option for the restraint.
regarding head injury criterion, the conduct testing to confirm compliance
of their restraints. This will be a IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
adoption of a 36 ms measurement
window for HIC, as opposed to the 15 financial impact on the manufacturers a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
ms window that was presented in the that could be spread out over a 2-year Planning and Review) and DOT
NPRM, will also serve as surrogate of time period. Some infant-only restraints Regulatory Policies and Procedures
sorts for a neck injury criterion to do not have backs high enough to
support the CRABI 12-month-old The agency has considered the
ensure that children continue to be well impacts of this final rule under
protected. dummy and will thus have to be
redesigned. Executive Order 12866 and the
NHTSA does not believe that enough Department of Transportation’s
The agency cannot estimate any lives
is known regarding neck injury for regulatory policies and procedures.
saved or injuries avoided from the
children at this time. As the agency is While the NPRM was reviewed under
amendment. There could be safety
not proposing the incorporation of Nij the Executive Order, this document was
benefits associated with keeping more
in this final rule, NHTSA likewise does not reviewed because it is considerably
infants rear-facing until they are at least
not feel that it is appropriate at this time narrower than the NPRM and has
12-months old, which could result from
to specify neck tension limits or any minimal costs. This document was
the change to the CRABI and to having
other neck criterion. These are areas treated as ‘‘not significant’’ under the
infant car seat/carriers be designed with
where the agency could perform Department of Transportation’s
higher back support structures.
additional research in the coming years, c. As for using the weighted 6-year- regulatory policies and procedures.
as warranted by a safety need and the old dummy to test restraints (typically The estimated costs for this final rule
demands on the agency’s resources. booster seats) recommended for are discussed in NHTSA’s final
In accordance with the TREAD Act, children with masses of over 22.7 kg regulatory evaluation (FRE) for this final
NHTSA has considered adopting the (weights over 50 lb), this rule specifies rule.17 There is a one-time cost of $1.68
neck injury criteria developed for a 2-year leadtime for the requirement million for manufacturers to purchase
FMVSS No. 208 into FMVSS No. 213. (the effective date for the change will be the new test dummies and $1.39 to
For the aforementioned reasons, we August 1, 2005). We do not anticipate $3.44 million to certify existing child
conclude that incorporating the criteria that manufacturers will have to redesign restraints to the new dummies and test
into Standard No. 213 is not warranted their booster seats or safety harnesses to requirements. The annual long-term
at this time. certify compliance using the dummy. costs are estimated to be $31,200 to test
f. Leadtime However, the rulemaking to incorporate new models of booster seats (including
the weighted 6-year-old dummy into built-in restraints) with a weighted 6-
The TREAD Act required NHTSA to part 572 is not complete, so the effective year-old dummy. We believe that use of
complete this rulemaking by November date is provided to account for the the new dummies, in itself, would not
1, 2002. With that date in mind, the completion of that rulemaking. (The necessitate redesign of child restraints.
agency made the following conclusions part 572 NPRM was published May 7, The new dummies perform similarly to
about the dates on which compliance 2003; 68 FR 24417.) the ones presently used in compliance
with the requirements will become d. Manufacturers are permitted the testing.
mandatory. option of voluntarily using the new sled The agency does not believe that
a. NHTSA believes that manufacturers assembly and pulse and the new test updating the seat assembly and revising
could begin certifying their child dummies prior to the date (August 1, the crash pulse will affect dummy
restraints based on testing done on the 2005) on which they would be required performance to an extent that benefits
new seat assembly and pulse in to do so. Note, however, that this final would accrue from such changes, nor
approximately 2 years (i.e., the effective rule also specifies that a manufacturer’s will benefits be gained by the change to
date for the change will be August 1, selection of a compliance option (e.g., to the dummies. There could be safety
2005). NPRM proposed a 2-year use the new dummies prior to the benefits associated with keeping more
leadtime, which Graco supported. While mandatory compliance date) must be
the agency does not expect the changes made prior to, or at the time of the 17 NHTSA’s final regulatory evaluation (FRE)

to the seat assembly to have a major compliance test and that the selection is discusses issues relating to the potential costs,
benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action.
effect on the results of compliance tests, irrevocable for that child restraint. This The FRE is available in the docket for this rule and
restraint manufacturers will likely have provision is needed for NHTSA to may be obtained by contacting Docket Management
to conduct testing to confirm efficiently carry out its enforcement at the address or telephone number provided at the
compliance of their restraints. This will responsibilities. The agency wants to beginning of this document. You may also read the
document via the Internet, by following the
be a financial impact on the avoid the situation of a manufacturer instructions in the section below entitled, ‘‘Viewing
manufacturers that could be spread out confronted with an apparent Docket Submissions.’’ The FRE will be listed in the
over a 2-year time period. The agency noncompliance (based on a compliance docket summary.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37653

infants rear-facing until they are at least various levels of government.’’ Under f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice
12-months old, which could result from Executive Order 13132, the agency may Reform)
the change to the CRABI and to having not issue a regulation with Federalism
infant car seat/carriers be designed with implications, that imposes substantial This final rule will not have any
higher back support structures. direct compliance costs, and that is not retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
However, the agency cannot quantify required by statute, unless the Federal 21403, whenever a Federal motor
any lives saved or injuries avoided from government provides the funds vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
the amendment. necessary to pay the direct compliance State may not adopt or maintain a safety
costs incurred by State and local standard applicable to the same aspect
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act of performance which is not identical to
governments, the agency consults with
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of State and local governments, or the the Federal standard, except to the
1980, as amended, requires agencies to agency consults with State and local extent that the state requirement
evaluate the potential effects of their officials early in the process of imposes a higher level of performance
proposed and final rules on small developing the proposed regulation. and applies only to vehicles procured
businesses, small organizations and NHTSA also may not issue a regulation for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 21461 sets
small governmental jurisdictions. I with Federalism implications and that forth a procedure for judicial review of
hereby certify that this final rule will preempts State law unless the agency final rules establishing, amending or
not have a significant economic impact consults with State and local officials revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
on a substantial number of small early in the process of developing the standards. That section does not require
entities. NHTSA estimates there to be proposed regulation. submission of a petition for
about 13 manufacturers of child reconsideration or other administrative
We have analyzed this final rule in
restraints, four or five of which could be proceedings before parties may file suit
accordance with the principles and
small businesses. in court.
This rule will not generally increase criteria set forth in Executive Order
the testing that NHTSA conducts of 13132 and have determined that this g. Paperwork Reduction Act
child restraints, except that booster rule does not have sufficient Federal
implications to warrant consultation Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
seats, harnesses and other types of child of 1995, a person is not required to
restraints that could be recommended with State and local officials or the
preparation of a Federalism summary respond to a collection of information
for children weighing over 50 lb will be by a Federal agency unless the
tested with the weighted 6-year-old impact statement. The rule will not have
any substantial impact on the States, or collection displays a valid OMB control
dummy, in addition to the dummies number. This final rule does not contain
presently used to assess the on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current any collection of information
performance of the restraint (generally requirements requiring review under the
these are the 3-year-old and the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local Paperwork Reduction Act.
unweighted 6-year-old dummies). Thus,
the certification responsibilities of officials. h. National Technology Transfer and
manufacturers will not generally be d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Advancement Act
affected. The agency does not believe
this final rule will impose a significant Section 202 of the Unfunded Section 12(d) of the National
economic impact on small entities, Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Technology Transfer and Advancement
because these businesses currently must requires Federal agencies to prepare a Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs us to use
certify their products to the dynamic written assessment of the costs, benefits voluntary consensus standards in our
test of Standard No. 213. That is, the and other effects of proposed or final regulatory activities unless doing so
products of these manufacturers already rules that include a Federal mandate would be inconsistent with applicable
are subject to dynamic testing using likely to result in the expenditure by law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
child test dummies. The effect of this State, local or tribal governments, in the consensus standards are technical
final rule on most child restraints is to aggregate, or by the private sector, of standards (e.g., materials specifications,
subject them to testing with new more than $100 million in any one year test methods, sampling procedures, and
dummies in place of existing ones, and/ ($100 million adjusted annually for business practices) that are developed or
or an additional dummy. Testing child inflation, with base year of 1995). adopted by voluntary consensus
restraints on a new seat assembly is not (Adjusting this amount by the implicit standards bodies, such as the
expected to significantly affect the gross domestic product price deflator for International Organization for
performance of the restraints. the year 2000 results in $109 million.) Standardization (ISO). The NTTAA
This final rule will not result in costs of directs us to provide Congress, through
c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) $109 million or more to either State, OMB, explanations when we decide not
Executive Order 13132 requires local, or tribal governments, in the to use available and applicable
NHTSA to develop an accountable aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, voluntary consensus standards. The
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and this final rule is not subject to the agency searched for, but did not find,
timely input by State and local officials requirements of sections 202 of the voluntary consensus standards for use at
in the development of regulatory UMRA. this time.
policies that have federalism i. Viewing Docket Submissions
e. National Environmental Policy Act
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in NHTSA has analyzed this final rule You may read the comments received
the Executive Order to include for the purposes of the National by Docket Management at Room PL–
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Environmental Policy Act. The agency 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
effects on the States, on the relationship has determined that implementation of Washington, DC, 20590 (telephone 202–
between the national government and this action will not have any significant 366–9324). You may visit the Docket
the States, or on the distribution of impact on the quality of the human from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
power and responsibilities among the environment. Friday.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37654 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

You may also see the comments on ■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘child gravity), calculated using the
the Internet. To read the comments on restraint system’’ in S4; expression:
the Internet, take the following steps: ■ b. Adding S5(d);
2 .5
(1) Go to the Docket Management ■ c. Revising the introductory text of  1 t2 
( t 2 − t1 )
 ( t 2 − t1 ) t∫ 
System (DMS) Web page of the S5.1.2; HIC =  adt 
Department of Transportation (http:// ■ d. Adding S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2;
dms.dot.gov/). ■ e. Revising the table to S5.2.1.1(a);  1 
(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’ ■ f. Revising the introductory text of (b) The resultant acceleration
(3) On the next page (http:// S5.2.1.2, calculated from the output of the
dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four- ■ g. Revising S5.2.3.1 and S5.9(a); thoracic instrumentation shall not
digit docket number shown at the ■ h. Revising S6.1.1(a)(1), S6.1.1(b)(1) exceed 60 g’s, except for intervals whose
beginning of this document. Example: If and S6.1.1(d), and the introductory text cumulative duration is not more than 3
the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA– of S6.2.3; milliseconds.
2002–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’ ■ i. Revising S7, and S9.1(c); S5.1.2.2 At the manufacturer’s
After typing the docket number, click on ■ j. Adding S9.1(d), S9.1(e) and S9.1(f); option (with said option irrevocably
‘‘search.’’ ■ k. Revising S9.3, S10.2.1(b)(2), selected prior to, or at the time of,
(4) On the next page, which contains S10.2.1(c)(1)(i) introductory text, and certification of the restraint), child
docket summary information for the S10.2.1(c)(2); restraint systems manufactured before
docket you selected, click on the desired ■ l. Revising Figure 1A; and, August 1, 2005 may be tested to the
comments. You may download the ■ m. Adding Figure 2A. requirements of S5 while using the test
comments. However, since the The revised and added text and dummies specified in S7.1.2 of this
comments are imaged documents, figures read as follows: standard according to the criteria for
instead of word processing documents, selecting test dummies specified in that
§ 571.213 Standard No. 213, Child restraint
the downloaded comments are not word systems. paragraph. That paragraph specifies the
searchable. dummies used to test child restraint
Anyone is able to search the * * * * *
S4. Definitions. systems manufactured on or after
electronic form of all comments August 1, 2005. If a manufacturer selects
received into any of our dockets by the Child restraint system means any
device, except Type I or Type II seat the dummies specified in S7.1.2 to test
name of the individual submitting the its product, the injury criteria specified
comment (or signing the comment, if belts, designed for use in a motor
vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or by S5.1.2.1 of this standard must be met.
submitted on behalf of an association, Child restraints manufactured on or
business, labor union, etc.). You may position children who weigh 30
kilograms (kg) or less. after August 1, 2005 must be tested
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act using the test dummies specified in
Statement in the Federal Register * * * * * S7.1.2.
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume S5. Requirements.
* * * * *
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you * * * * *
S5.2 Force distribution.
may visit http://dms.dot.gov. (d) Each child restraint tested with a
part 572 subpart N dummy that is * * * * *
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 weighted to weigh 28.2 kg need not S5.2.1.1 * * *
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and meet S5.1.2 and S5.1.3. (a) * * *
recordkeeping requirements, Tires, * * * * *
Incorporation by Reference. S5.1.2 Injury criteria. When tested in TABLE TO S5.2.1.1(A)
accordance with S6.1 and with the test
PART 571—[AMENDED] dummies specified in S7, each child Weight 1 Height 2(mm)

■ In consideration of the foregoing, restraint system manufactured before Not more than 18 kg ............... 500
NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set August 1, 2005, that, in accordance with More than 18 kg ...................... 560
forth below. S5.5.2, is recommended for use by
1 When a child restraint system is rec-
■ 1. The authority citation for Part 571 children whose mass is more than 10 kg
ommended under S5.5 for use by children of
continues to read as follows: shall— the above weights.
2 The height of the portion of the system
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
* * * * *
S5.1.2.1 When tested in accordance seat back providing head restraint shall not be
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at less than the above.
49 CFR 1.50. with S6.1 and with the test dummies
specified in S7, each child restraint * * * * *
■ 2. Section 571.5 is amended by system manufactured on or after August S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the
renumbering the current paragraph 1, 2005 shall’ requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a front-
(b)(10) as (b)(11) and adding a new (a) Limit the resultant acceleration at facing child restraint, and the
paragraph (b)(10), to read as follows: the location of the accelerometer conformance of any child restraint other
mounted in the test dummy head such than a car bed to those requirements, is
§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference
that, for any two points in time, t1 and determined using the largest of the test
* * * * * t2, during the event which are separated dummies specified in S7 for use in
(10) Child Restraint Systems Seat by not more than a 36 millisecond time testing that restraint, provided that the
Assembly Drawing Package. Copies may interval and where t1 is less than t2, the 6-year-old dummy described in subpart
be obtained by contacting: Leet- maximum calculated head injury I or subpart N of part 572 of this title
Melbrook, 18810 Woodfield Road, criterion (HIC36) shall not exceed 1,000, is not used to determine the
Gaithersburg, MD, 20879, telephone determined using the resultant head applicability of or compliance with
(301) 670–0090. acceleration at the center of gravity of S5.2.1.1. A front-facing child restraint
* * * * * the dummy head, ar, expressed as a system is not required to comply with
ER18jn03.018</MATH>

■ 3. Section 571.213 is amended by: multiple of g (the acceleration of S5.2.1.1 if the target point on either side

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37655

of the dummy’s head is below a drawings and a bill of materials) dated S7.1.1 Child restraints that are
horizontal plane tangent to the top of— June 3, 2003 (incorporated by reference; manufactured before August 1, 2005, are
* * * * * see § 571.5). The assembly is mounted subject to the following provisions:
S5.2.3.1 Each child restraint system on a dynamic test platform so that the (a) A child restraint that is
other than a child harness, center SORL of the seat is parallel to the recommended by its manufacturer in
manufactured before August 1, 2005, direction of the test platform travel and accordance with S5.5 for use either by
that is recommended under S5.5.2 for a so that movement between the base of children in a specified mass range that
child whose mass is less than 10 kg and the assembly and the platform is includes any children having a mass of
that is not tested with the Part 572 prevented. not greater than 5 kg, or by children in
Subpart R dummy, shall comply with * * * * * a specified height range that includes
S5.2.3. any children whose height is not greater
(b) * * * than 650 mm, is tested with a newborn
S5.9 Attachment to child restraint
(1) Test Configuration I, are at a test dummy conforming to part 572
anchorage system.
(a) Each add-on child restraint velocity change of 48 km/h with the subpart K.
anchorage system manufactured on or acceleration of the test platform entirely (b) A child restraint that is
after September 1, 2002, other than a car within the curve shown in Figure 2 (for recommended by its manufacturer in
bed, harness and belt-positioning seat, child restraints manufactured before accordance with S5.5 for use either by
shall have components permanently August 1, 2005) or in Figure 2A (for children in a specified mass range that
attached to the system that enable the child restraints manufactured on or after includes any children having a mass
restraint to be securely fastened to the August 1, 2005), or for the specific greater than 5 but not greater than 10 kg,
vehicle test with the deceleration or by children in a specified height
lower anchorages of the child restraint
produced in a 48 km/h frontal barrier range that includes any children whose
anchorage system specified in Standard
crash. height is greater than 650 mm but not
No. 225 (§ 571.213) and depicted in
* * * * * greater than 850 mm, is tested with a
Drawing Package SAS–100–1000 with
newborn test dummy conforming to part
Addendum A: Seat Base Weldment (d)(1) When using the test dummies
572 subpart K, and a 9-month-old test
(consisting of drawings and a bill of specified in 49 CFR Part 572, subparts
dummy conforming to part 572 subpart
materials), dated October 23, 1998, or in C, I, J, or K, performance tests under
J.
Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard S6.1 are conducted at any ambient (c) A child restraint that is
Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. temperature from 19° C to 26° C and at recommended by its manufacturer in
NHTSA–213–2003,’’ (consisting of any relative humidity from 10 percent to accordance with S5.5 for use either by
drawings and a bill of materials) dated 70 percent. children in a specified mass range that
June 3, 2003 (incorporated by reference; (2) When using the test dummies includes any children having a mass
see § 571.5). The components must be specified in 49 CFR Part 572, subparts greater than 10 kg but not greater than
attached by use of a tool, such as a N, P or R, performance tests under S6.1 18 kg, or by children in a specified
screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing are conducted at any ambient height range that includes any children
child restraints with detachable bases, temperature from 20.6° C to 22.2° C and whose height is greater than 850 mm but
only the base is required to have the at any relative humidity from 10 percent not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with
components. to 70 percent. a 9-month-old test dummy conforming
* * * * * * * * * * to part 572 subpart J, and a 3-year-old
S6.1.1 Test conditions. test dummy conforming to part 572
S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the
(a) Test devices. subpart C and S7.2, provided, however,
dummy restrained in the child restraint
(1) Add-on child restraints. that the 9-month-old dummy is not used
system and apply the following force: 50
(ii) The test device for add-on to test a booster seat.
N for a system tested with a newborn
restraint systems manufactured before (d) A child restraint that is
dummy; 90 N for a system tested with
August 1, 2005 is a standard seat recommended by its manufacturer in
a 9-month-old dummy; 90 N for a
assembly consisting of a simulated accordance with S5.5 for use either by
system tested with a 12-month-old
vehicle bench seat, with three seating children in a specified mass range that
dummy; 200 N for a system tested with
positions, which is described in includes any children having a mass
a 3-year-old dummy; or 270 N for a
Drawing Package SAS–100–1000 with greater than 18 kg, or by children in a
system tested with a 6-year-old dummy;
Addendum A: Seat Base Weldment specified height range that includes any
or 350 N for a system tested with a
(consisting of drawings and a bill of children whose height is greater than
weighted 6-year-old dummy. The force
materials), dated October 23, 1998 1100 mm, is tested with a 6-year-old
is applied in the manner illustrated in
(incorporated by reference in § 571.5). child dummy conforming to part 572
Figure 4 and as follows:
The assembly is mounted on a dynamic subpart I.
test platform so that the center SORL of * * * * * (e) A child restraint that is
the seat is parallel to the direction of the S7 Test dummies. (Subparts manufactured on or after August 1,
test platform travel and so that referenced in this section are of part 572 2005, and that is recommended by its
movement between the base of the of this chapter.) S7.1 Dummy selection. manufacturer in accordance with S5.5
assembly and the platform is prevented. Select any dummy specified in S7.1.1, for use either by children in a specified
(ii) The test device for add-on S7.1.2 or S7.1.3, as appropriate, for mass range that includes any children
restraint systems manufactured on or testing systems for use by children of having a mass greater than 22.7 kg, or
after August 1, 2005 is a standard seat the height and mass for which the by children in a specified height range
assembly consisting of a simulated system is recommended in accordance that includes any children whose height
vehicle bench seat, with three seating with S5.5. A child restraint that meets is greater than 1100 mm, is tested with
positions, which is depicted in Drawing the criteria in two or more of the a part 572 subpart N dummy that is
Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat following paragraphs in S7 may be weighted to weigh 28.2 kg.
Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. tested with any of the test dummies S7.1.2 Child restraints that are
NHTSA–213–2003,’’ (consisting of specified in those paragraphs. manufactured on or after August 1,

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37656 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

2005, are subject to the following prior to, or at the time of, certification cotton or nylon and a total mass of 0.453
provisions. of the restraint), child restraint systems kg.
(a) A child restraint that is manufactured before August 1, 2005 * * * * *
recommended by its manufacturer in may be tested to the requirements of S5 S9.3 Preparing dummies. (Subparts
accordance with S5.5 for use either by while using the test dummies specified referenced in this section are of Part 572
children in a specified mass range that in S7.1.2 according to the criteria for of this chapter.)
includes any children having a mass of selecting test dummies specified in that S9.3.1 When using the test dummies
not greater than 5 kg, or by children in paragraph. Child restraints conforming to Part 572 Subpart C, I, J,
a specified height range that includes manufactured on or after August 1, or K, prepare the dummies as specified
any children whose height is not greater 2005, must be tested using the test in this paragraph. Before being used in
than 650 mm, is tested with a newborn dummies specified in S7.1.2. testing under this standard, dummies
test dummy conforming to part 572 * * * * * must be conditioned at any ambient
subpart K. S9.1 Type of clothing. temperature from 19° C to 25.5° C and
(b) A child restraint that is at any relative humidity from 10 percent
recommended by its manufacturer in * * * * *
(c) 12-month-old dummy (49 CFR Part to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours.
accordance with S5.5 for use either by S9.3.2 When using the test dummies
children in a specified mass range that 572, Subpart R). When used in testing
under this standard, the dummy conforming to Part 572 Subparts N
includes any children having a mass (weighted and unweighted), P, or R,
greater than 5 but not greater than 10 kg, specified in 49 CFR part 572, subparts
R, is clothed in a cotton-polyester based prepare the dummies as specified in this
or by children in a specified height paragraph. Before being used in testing
range that includes any children whose tight fitting sweat shirt with long sleeves
and ankle long pants whose combined under this standard, dummies must be
height is greater than 650 mm but not
weight is not more than 0.25 kg. conditioned at any ambient temperature
greater than 850 mm, is tested with a
(d) Hybrid II three-year-old and from 20.6° C to 22.2° C and at any
newborn test dummy conforming to part
Hybrid II six-year-old dummies (49 CFR relative humidity from 10 percent to 70
572 subpart K, and a 12-month-old test
part 572, subparts C and I). When used percent, for at least 4 hours.
dummy conforming to part 572 subpart
R. in testing under this standard, the * * * * *
(c) A child restraint that is dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572, S10.2.1 * * *
recommended by its manufacturer in subparts C and I, are clothed in thermal (b) * * *
accordance with S5.5 for use either by knit, waffle-weave polyester and cotton (2) When testing rear-facing child
children in a specified mass range that underwear or equivalent, a size 4 long- restraint systems, place the newborn, 9-
includes any children having a mass sleeved shirt (3-year-old dummy) or a month-old or 12-month-old dummy in
greater than 10 kg but not greater than size 5 long-sleeved shirt (6-year-old the child restraint system so that the
18 kg, or by children in a specified dummy) having a mass of 0.090 kg, a back of the dummy torso contacts the
height range that includes any children size 4 pair of long pants having a mass back support surface of the system. For
whose height is greater than 850 mm but of 0.090 kg, and cut off just far enough a child restraint system which is
not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with above the knee to allow the knee target equipped with a fixed or movable
a 12-month-old test dummy conforming to be visible, and size 7M sneakers (3- surface described in S5.2.2.2 which is
to part 572 subpart R, and a 3-year-old year-old dummy) or size 121⁄2M being tested under the conditions of test
test dummy conforming to part 572 sneakers (6-year-old dummy) with configuration II, do not attach any of the
subpart P and S7.2, provided, however, rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and child restraint belts unless they are an
that the 12-month-old dummy is not cotton or nylon and a total mass of 0.453 integral part of the fixed or movable
used to test a booster seat. kg. surface. For all other child restraint
(d) A child restraint that is (e) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy (49 systems and for a child restraint system
recommended by its manufacturer in CFR Part 572, Subpart P). When used in with a fixed or movable surface which
accordance with S5.5 for use either by testing under this standard, the dummy is being tested under the conditions of
children in a specified mass range that specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart P, test configuration I, attach all
includes any children having a mass is clothed in thermal knit, waffle-weave appropriate child restraint belts and
greater than 18 kg, or by children in a polyester and cotton underwear or tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
specified height range that includes any equivalent, a size 4 long-sleeved shirt Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and
children whose height is greater than (3-year-old dummy) or a size 5 long- tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
1100 mm, is tested with a 6-year-old sleeved shirt (6-year-old dummy) having Position each movable surface in
child dummy conforming to part 572 a mass of 0.090 kg, a size 4 pair of long accordance with the instructions that
subpart N. pants having a mass of 0.090 kg, and cut the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1
(e) A child restraint that is off just far enough above the knee to or S5.6.2. If the dummy’s head does not
manufactured on or August 1, 2005, that allow the knee target to be visible, and remain in the proper position, tape it
is recommended by its manufacturer in size 7M sneakers with rubber toe caps, against the front of the seat back surface
accordance with S5.5 for use either by uppers of dacron and cotton or nylon of the system by means of a single
children in a specified mass range that and a total mass of 0.453 kg. thickness of 6 mm-wide paper masking
includes any children having a mass (f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 tape placed across the center of the
greater than 22.7 kg or by children in a CFR Part 572, Subpart N) and Hybrid III dummy’s face.
specified height range that includes any weighted 6-year-old dummy. When used (c)(1)(i) When testing forward-facing
children whose height is greater than in testing under this standard, the child restraint systems, extend the arms
1100 mm is tested with a part 572 dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, of the 9-month-old or 12-month-old test
subpart N dummy that is weighted to subpart N, weighted and unweighted, is dummy as far as possible in the upward
weigh 28.2 kg. clothed in a light-weight cotton stretch vertical direction. Extend the legs of the
S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee 9-month-old or 12-month-old test
dummies. At the manufacturer’s option pants, and size 121⁄2 M sneakers with dummy as far as possible in the forward
(with said option irrevocably selected rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and horizontal direction, with the dummy

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37657

feet perpendicular to the centerline of arms vertically upwards and then rotate that no arm is restrained from
the lower legs. Using a flat square each arm downward toward the movement in other than the downward
surface with an area of 2,580 square dummy’s lower body until the arm direction, by any part of the system or
mm, apply a force of 178 N, contacts a surface of the child restraint the belts used to anchor the system to
perpendicular to: system or the standard seat assembly in the standard seat assembly, the specific
the case of an add-on child restraint shell, or the specific vehicle.
* * * * *
system, or the specific vehicle shell or
(2) When testing rear-facing child the specific vehicle, in the case of a * * * * *
restraint systems, extend the dummy’s built-in child restraint system. Ensure BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

ER18jn03.012</GPH>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2
37658 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 121 / Tuesday, June 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Issued on: June 4, 2003.


Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03–14425 Filed 6–23–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
ER18jn03.013</GPH></REGTEXT>

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Jun 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24JNR2.SGM 24JNR2