[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37731-37739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12875]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21243]
RIN 2127-AI66
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child
restraint systems,'' requires that the webbing of child restraints must
not lose more than a specified percentage of its original breaking
strength as a result of being exposed to certain adverse conditions.
The standard currently does not specify a minimum breaking strength for
the unexposed webbing. This document proposes such a minimum, as well
as a minimum breaking strength requirement for the exposed webbing. It
also makes clearer in the text of FMVSS No. 213 that the heavier of two
weights specified in the standard is used to abrade the webbing used to
attach child restraint systems to the child restraint anchorages
located in a vehicle.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket
Management System Docket Number in the heading of this NPRM) by any of
the following methods:
Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Analyses and
Notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you
may contact Mr. Tewabe Asebe, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-
2365) (Fax: 202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may contact Ms.
Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992)
(Fax: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
FMVSS No. 213 regulates child restraint systems used in motor
vehicles and aircraft (49 CFR 571.213). This NPRM concerns the
standard's strength requirements for belt webbing, set forth in S5.4.1
of FMVSS No. 213. Among other things, that section states that the
webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system and used to
attach the system to the vehicle, or to restrain the child within the
system, shall meet certain strength requirements after being subjected
to abrasion (S5.4.1(a)), light exposure (S5.4.1(b)), and micro-
organisms (S5.4.1(b)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S5.4.1(a) and (b) reference FMVSS No. 209, 49 CFR 571.209,
``Seat belt assemblies,'' which specifies requirements for seat belt
assemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of these strength requirements is expressed in the form of a
percentage of
[[Page 37732]]
the strength of the original webbing. S5.4.1(a) specifies that, after
being subjected to abrasion as specified in certain sections of FMVSS
No. 209, the webbing must have a breaking strength of not less than 75
percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing. S5.4.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 213, referring to S4.2(e) in FMVSS No. 209, specifies that after
being exposed to light, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of
not less than 60 percent of the strength before exposure. The same
section of FMVSS No. 213 also refers to S4.2(f) of FMVSS No. 209, which
specifies that after being exposed to micro-organisms, the webbing
shall have a breaking strength of not less than 85 percent of the
strength before exposure to micro-organisms.
This NPRM seeks to achieve three goals. First is to specify a
minimum breaking strength for unabraded webbing or webbing that has not
been exposed to light or micro-organisms (hereinafter referred to as
``new webbing''). Second is to affirm that a purpose of S5.4.1(a) and
(b) of FMVSS No. 213 is to limit the degradation rate of the webbing.
Limiting degradation is done by having a minimum breaking strength
requirement that applies to webbing that has been exposed to mechanical
or environmental conditions in the test laboratory that accelerate the
aging of the webbing. (Webbing that has been abraded and exposed to the
accelerated conditions will be referred to as ``exposed webbing.'')
NHTSA tentatively concludes that specifying minimum breaking strength
requirements for new and exposed webbing eliminates the need for the
current percentage strength degradation requirements. Third is to
clarify the weight used in the abrasion test to abrade the webbing used
to attach child restraint systems to the child restraint anchorages
located in a vehicle.
Table 1, below, summarizes this NPRM's proposed minimum breaking
strength requirements for new and exposed webbing: (a) Used to attach
the child restraint system to the child restraint anchorage system on
the vehicle (hereinafter ``tether webbing''), and (b) used to restrain
the child in the child restraint (hereinafter ``harness webbing'').
Table 1.--Proposed Breaking Strength Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed breaking strength
Type of webbing Type of exposure requirement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New tether webbing.................. .................................................... 15,000 N
Exposed tether webbing.............. Abrasion............................................ 11,200 N
Exposure to light................................... 9,000 N
Exposure to micro-organisms......................... 12,700 N
New harness webbing................. .................................................... 11,000 N
Exposed harness webbing............. Abrasion............................................ 8,200 N
Exposure to light................................... 6,600 N
Exposure to micro-organisms......................... 9,300 N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Current Minimum Breaking Strength Requirement
FMVSS No. 213 does not specify a minimum breaking strength for new
webbing. NHTSA is concerned that, because currently each of the
strength requirements for exposed webbing is expressed in the form of a
percentage of the strength of the webbing as new, where there is no
specified minimum breaking strength for new webbing, manufacturers
could use webbing of inferior strength to meet the standard's
requirements. The exposed webbing might have a breaking strength that
is within the specified percentage of the strength of the new webbing,
but the webbing might not have an absolute strength high enough to
provide a margin of safety for use throughout the life of a child
restraint.
Until 1979, FMVSS No. 213 had specified minimum breaking strength
requirements for harness webbing used in a child restraint. The
original FMVSS No. 213, ``Child Seating Systems'' (March 26, 1970; 35
FR 5120), required harness webbing to meet FMVSS No. 209's performance
requirements for ``Type 3'' seat belt assemblies.\2\ FMVSS No. 209
required that the webbing in a Type 3 seat belt assembly have not less
than: 1500 pounds (6,672 N) breaking strength for webbing in pelvic and
upper torso restraints; 4,000 pounds (17,793 N) breaking strength for
webbing in seat back retainers; and 4,000 pounds (17,793 N) breaking
strength for webbing connecting pelvic and upper torso restraints to
attachment hardware when the assembly had a single webbing connection,
or 3,000 pounds (13,345 N) breaking strength for such webbing when the
assembly had two or more webbing connections.\3\ (S4.2(b))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FMVSS No. 209 defined a Type 3 seat belt assembly as a
combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing
not more than 50 pounds (23 kilograms)(kg) and capable of sitting
upright by themselves, typically children from 8 months to 6 years
old.
\3\ The pound forces were compared to kilograms. Because a
kilogram is a unit of mass, the pound forces should have been
compared to Newton (1 lbf [ap] 4.45 N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1979, NHTSA upgraded FMVSS No. 213 to expand the
coverage of the standard to all types of restraint systems and to
incorporate dynamic testing of the devices. Requirements for child
harnesses were moved from FMVSS No. 209 to FMVSS No. 213, and all
references to ``Type 3'' belts were deleted from the standards. The
1979 rule expanded the applicability of FMVSS No. 213's webbing
requirements, from webbing used to restrain the child, to ``webbing * *
* used to attach the system to the vehicle or to restrain the child
within the system * * *.'' 44 FR 72131, 72149. In place of the webbing
strength requirements that had been in FMVSS No. 209, the final rule
established a requirement in FMVSS No. 213 that webbing used in child
restraint systems have an abraded breaking strength of not less than 75
percent of its unabraded breaking strength.
The final rule did not retain the breaking strength requirements
for unabraded webbing formerly contained in FMVSS No. 209, and did not
establish a new minimum breaking strength requirement for unabraded
webbing. In the NPRM preceding the 1979 final rule, the agency noted
that while it was not explicitly proposing belt elongation and strength
requirements, ``these factors would have to be considered by
manufacturers of child restraints equipped with belts to ensure that
the webbing abrasion and the proposed acceleration and excursion limits
are met.'' (43 FR 21475; May 18, 1978.)
Since that time, not having a minimum breaking strength for
unabraded webbing has affected the enforcement action of the agency.
[[Page 37733]]
Evenflo petitioned for and was granted an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, on the
basis that a noncompliance with S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 was
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.\4\ (67 FR 21798; May 1, 2002;
Docket No. 2000-7818, Notice 2.) The breaking strength of unabraded
tether webbing on some of Evenflo's child restraints was 20,426 N.
After being abraded, the tether webbing's breaking strength was 13,706
N, or about 67 percent of the strength of the unabraded tether webbing
(which did not comply with the requirement that the strength of the
exposed webbing must be at least 75 percent of the strength of the
unabraded tether webbing). Evenflo reported that notwithstanding this
failure, its tether webbing, even in a severely abraded condition,
passed the FMVSS No. 213 dynamic test requirements for child restraint
systems with over a 90 percent strength safety margin.\5\ Evenflo also
stated that its tether webbing is stronger before abrasion than the
tether webbing of other major U.S. child restraint manufacturers, and
that the strength of its webbing is reduced to that of its competitors'
webbing only when it is severely abraded, beyond that required by FMVSS
No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 30118(c) requires a manufacturer to notify NHTSA and
the owners, purchasers, and dealers of noncompliant vehicles or
equipment if the manufacturer (1) learns the vehicles or equipment
contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is
related to motor vehicle safety; or (2) decides in good faith that
the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standard. Section 30120(a)(1) requires the
manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance without charge. Section
30118(d) requires that, upon application by a manufacturer, NHTSA
must exempt the manufacturer from the notification and remedy
requirements if the agency decides the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor safety.
\5\ FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraint systems to meet
requirements for integrity, injury criteria, occupant excursion, and
force distribution after being subjected to a 48 km/h (30 mph)
frontal barrier crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency granted the petition after analyzing, inter alia, FMVSS
No. 213 compliance data pertaining to breaking strength and abrasion of
new tether webbing used in child restraint systems and adult seat belt
assemblies. The agency determined that the tether webbing used in
Evenflo's child restraints achieved the performance previously
specified in FMVSS Nos. 209 and 213 during 1971-1979 for webbing in the
unabraded condition and after abrasion conditioning. The agency further
noted, however, that it would undertake rulemaking to consider whether
to amend FMVSS No. 213 to require a minimum breaking strength for
webbing ``to ensure that all child restraints being introduced into the
market have adequate webbing strength to provide child safety
protection over their lifetime.'' (67 FR at 21799)
II. Agency Proposal
The agency is proposing minimum breaking strength requirements for
new webbing. In addition, NHTSA believes that webbing should retain a
minimum breaking strength for the usable life of the child restraint
system. Webbing would be better able to retain its strength by meeting
a minimum breaking strength requirement after abrasion or exposure to
environmental conditions, namely exposure to light and exposure to
micro-organisms. By specifying a minimum breaking strength requirement
after mechanical or environmental webbing exposure, in conjunction with
the minimum breaking strength requirement for new webbing, NHTSA
effectively limits the mechanical and environmental degradation of the
webbing. These tests are conducted to ensure that the webbing will
still perform acceptably in protecting a child in the event of a crash,
even after the webbing has been degraded through exposure to specified
conditions that are intended to simulate those conditions that the
webbing will likely encounter through normal use.
The basis for the current exposed webbing strength requirements--
expressed as a percentage of the webbing's unexposed strength--is an
SAE standard (Motor vehicle seat belt assemblies `` SAE J4C, 1966)
whose requirements were originally adopted into FMVSS No. 209, and
subsequently into FMVSS No. 213, for use in evaluating webbing strength
following environmental conditioning. As noted earlier, webbing must
maintain at least: (a) 75 percent of its original strength after
abrasion, (b) 60 percent of its original strength after exposure to
light, and (c) 85 percent of its original strength after exposure to
micro-organisms. The agency believes that, while in real-world
conditions webbing could be subject to all of these conditions
simultaneously and that the tests described are conducted separately,
the exposed webbing strength levels are nonetheless sufficient to
ensure that the restraint will perform acceptably. This is demonstrated
through a review of NHTSA compliance data, in conjunction with a lack
of real-world reports of webbing degradation.
The agency also notes that current child restraints are required by
FMVSS No. 213 to have components that attach to a child restraint
anchorage system ``LATCH'' \6\ on a vehicle. At this time, child
restraint manufacturers have predominately chosen to attach these
components to the child restraint by use of webbing material. Because
this tether webbing material attaches the child restraint to the
vehicle and takes the place of the vehicle's seat belts in fulfilling
this function, it is essential that this child restraint tether webbing
meet minimum breaking strength requirements. These requirements will
ensure a secure attachment of the restraint to the vehicle for the
lifetime of the restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``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, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.''
This preamble uses the term to describe either an FMVSS No. 225
anchorage system in a vehicle or a child restraint that attaches to
an FMVSS No. 225 child restraint anchorage system. Child restraints
have been required to have components enabling attachment to the
lower anchors of a vehicle's LATCH system since September 1, 2002.
They have had top tethers that attach to the tether anchor of a
LATCH system since 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale for Proposed Values
NHTSA believes that, in setting minimum tether and harness webbing
breaking strength requirements, the agency should consider the effect
of the child occupant's weight, crash duration and severity, as well as
potential misuse by consumers in securing child restraint systems to
vehicles. For example, if a consumer improperly attaches one of the
child restraint system's LATCH anchorages, higher than normal loads
could be placed on the other attachments. The agency tentatively
concludes that the safety factor included in the minimum breaking
strength requirements should account for these possibilities. Moreover,
due to the nature of their use, the webbing used in child restraint
systems may encounter more soiling than webbing material used in adult
restraint systems.
Before FMVSS No. 213 was established, FMVSS No. 209 maintained
separate strength requirements: one for webbing used to attach the
child seating system to the vehicle (tether webbing), and another for
webbing used to restrain the child in the child seating system (harness
webbing). The agency is proposing to continue this approach by
establishing separate minimum breaking strength requirements for tether
webbing (as used in this preamble, this term includes webbing used to
attach a child restraint to all three anchorages of a LATCH system),
and another for harness webbing.
To determine proposed levels for these minimum breaking strength
[[Page 37734]]
requirements, the agency evaluated two data sources. First, the agency
reviewed FMVSS No. 213 compliance data for the years 2000-2002. NHTSA
examined webbing compliance test data for 129 new child restraint
systems. Twenty of these tests involved tether webbing, while the other
109 tests involved harness webbing. Second, NHTSA reviewed the FMVSS
No. 209 breaking strength requirements for Type 3 seat belt assembly
webbing prior to the establishment of FMVSS No. 213, which had also
been adopted directly from the requirements of SAE J4C. The Type 3 seat
belt assemblies requirements used prior to 1979 were:
1. 1,500 pounds (6,670 N) breaking strength for webbing in pelvic
and upper torso restraints.
2. 4,000 pounds (17,793 N) breaking strength for webbing in seat
back retainers.
3. 4,000 pounds (17,793 N) breaking strength for webbing connecting
pelvic and upper torso restraints to attachment hardware when the
assembly had a single webbing connection, or 3,000 pounds (13,340 N)
breaking strength for such webbing when the assembly had two or more
webbing connections.
New Tether Webbing
NHTSA is proposing a minimum breaking strength requirement of
15,000 N for new tether webbing. The 15,000 N proposal is based on the
following rationale.
The term tether webbing (as used in this preamble) includes webbing
used to attach a child restraint to any of the three anchorages of a
LATCH system--either the two lower anchorages or the upper tether
anchorage. Tether webbing needs to be able to withstand the loads
imposed by the mass of a child and child restraint together in the
event of a crash, in the same manner as the webbing used in Type 3 seat
belt assemblies. (This is in contrast to harness webbing, which only
needs to restrain the child occupant within the restraint system.)
Tether webbing is thus analogous to Type 3 seat belt webbing referenced
in FMVSS No. 213 prior to 1979. Type 3 webbing was required to meet a
breaking strength in the range of approximately 13,000-18,000 N
(depending on the number of webbing connections as noted earlier).
The agency is proposing that new tether webbing meet a minimum
breaking strength of 15,000 N--the approximate mid-point of the range
specified for Type 3 seat belt assemblies prior to 1979. NHTSA
tentatively believes that a 17,000 N requirement might be excessive.
Only 12 of the 20 webbings that we tested in the FMVSS No. 213
compliance program in 2000-2002 would pass such a requirement, while
NHTSA has not seen any real-world problems with respect to webbing
failures. A lower bound of 13,000 N would result in 18 of the 20 tether
webbing samples passing. With the tether webbing being used to attach
the child and child restraint to the vehicle (via the LATCH system), it
is imperative that the webbing be strong enough to bear the mass of the
child and restraint in a crash over the lifetime of the restraint. A
15,000 N requirement has a margin of safety above the minimum 13,000 N
lower limit previously established for Type 3 webbing.
In addition, NHTSA has examined tether webbing compliance data for
20 child restraint systems, and has concluded that a 15,000 N breaking
strength requirement for new tether webbing is both feasible and
practicable. Of the 20 webbings evaluated, the highest unexposed
(``unabraded'') webbing strength measured was 20,871 N. Seventeen (17)
of the 20 unabraded webbing strengths measured above 15,000 N. The data
show that the median unabraded webbing strength was 18,156 N, with the
average being 17,153 N. A summary of the compliance data has been
placed in the docket. It is also worth reiterating that the agency is
unaware of any real-world data that would indicate the presence of a
safety problem associated with the strength levels of current webbings.
One sample of Safeline tether webbing would fail the proposed
15,000 N requirement with an unabraded tether webbing breaking strength
of 12,238 N. One sample of Evenflo tether webbing would also fail the
proposed 15,000 N requirement with an unabraded tether webbing breaking
strength of 13,973 N. Similarly, one sample of Britax tether webbing
had an unabraded breaking strength of only 5,385 N. These samples met
the current strength requirement (which is based on retaining a
percentage of the webbing's original strength) because they all
retained 100 percent of the unabraded tether webbing strength. The
Britax sample had an unusually low breaking strength (5,385 N) compared
to the other tether webbings, as the average unabraded strength of
other tether webbings evaluated in the compliance test program was
17,153 N. That is, for the 20 child restraints examined, the majority
of all tether webbings are about three times stronger than the Britax
tether webbing.
Exposed Tether Webbing. While the minimum strength proposals apply
to new tether webbing, the abrasion test and the other tests that
distress the webbing account for the use of the child restraint
components over the long-term and specify a limit on how much the
tether webbing can degrade. To ensure tether webbing has enough
strength to endure a lifetime of use and exposure, this NPRM proposes
to require the tether webbing to meet minimum strength requirements
after abrasion, exposure to light, and exposure to micro-organisms.
These are the same test conditions to which such webbing is currently
subjected (see S5.4.1 of FMVSS No. 213). Each of the post-exposure
strength requirements is calculated from current percentages of the
strength of the original (new) tether webbing now required by FMVSS No.
213.
We propose not changing the percentages now used in S5.4.1 to
calculate the required minimum strength of the exposed tether webbing.
These percentages are: 75% (abrasion); 60% (exposure to light); and 85%
(exposure to micro-organisms). Since we are proposing that new tether
webbing meet a minimum strength requirement of 15,000 N, the proposed
minimum strength requirements for exposed tether webbing are: 11,200 N
(abrasion), 9,000 N (exposure to light), and 12,700 N (exposure to
micro-organisms).
Abrasion. The tether webbing compliance data indicates that an
11,200 N breaking strength requirement for abraded tether webbing
appears to be feasible and practicable. Of the 20 webbings evaluated,
the highest abraded tether webbing strength was 20,203 N, while the
lowest was 5,385 N. Eighteen (18) of the 20 abraded tether webbing
strengths were above 11,200 N. The median abraded tether webbing
strength was 16,287 N, with the average being 15,689 N.
Two of the 20 tether webbings evaluated failed to meet the current
75 percent abrasion test requirement. One was a sample of Evenflo
tether webbing from the 2000 compliance test program, which retained
only 67 percent of its measured unabraded strength. The other was a
sample of Cosco tether webbing from the 2001 test program, which
retained only 55 percent of its unabraded strength. The Evenflo sample
would meet the proposed 11,200 N strength requirement for abraded
tether webbing, while the Cosco sample would be just below (10,900 N)
the proposed requirement.
We also note that the Britax sample from the 2002 compliance test
program retained all its unabraded strength after abrasion, which met
the current strength requirement for exposed tether webbing. However,
with a breaking strength of only 5,385 N, the tether webbing would
[[Page 37735]]
fail to meet the proposed requirement of 11,200 N.
Exposure to light. The proposed minimum strength requirements for
tether webbing exposure to light is 9,000 N. Nineteen (19) of the 20
tether webbing strengths after exposure to light measure above 9,000 N.
Of the 20 tether webbings evaluated, the highest exposed to light
tether webbing strength was 21,850 N, while the lowest was 5,563 N. The
median light exposed tether webbing strength was 14,930 N, with the
average being 14,902 N. The exposure to light test data for the same 20
tether webbing samples evaluated for abrasion testing discussed earlier
have also been placed in the docket.
Of the 20 webbings evaluated, only Britax at 59 percent failed to
meet the current 60 percent exposure to light test requirement. That
sample would meet the proposed 9,000 N strength requirement for
exposure to light test.
We also note that one of the Britax samples for FY 2002 data
retained all its original strength after exposure to light test, which
met the current strength requirement for exposed tether webbing.
However, with a breaking strength of only 5,563 N, the tether webbing
would fail to meet the proposed requirement of 9,000 N.
Exposure to micro-organisms. S5.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209 states:
``Note: This test shall not be required on tether webbing made from
material which is inherently resistant to micro-organisms.'' Currently,
manufacturers use nylon or polyester material for their tether webbing
and, therefore, the agency has no data for micro-organisms tests for
tether webbing.
Because it is possible that in the future manufacturers may use
less resistant tether webbing material, the agency is proposing tether
webbing strengths for new and exposed webbing of 15,000 N and 12,700 N,
respectively.
Harness Webbing
Child restraints, other than belt-positioning booster seats, use an
internal harness system and/or a structural element positioned in front
of the child to restrain the forward motion of a child occupant in the
event of a crash. Most child restraints using an internal harness
system are recommended for use by children weighing up to 18 kilograms
(kg) (40 pounds).\7\ However, data from a Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia (CHOP) study show that even though manufacturers'
typically recommend use of harness-type restraints only up to 18 kg,
many children are kept in child restraints with internal harnesses well
beyond that weight.\8\ Using the crash surveillance database from the
Partners for Child Passenger Safety (PCPS) project, CHOP estimated that
from 1999 to 2002, 32 percent fewer U.S. children between 9 and 36.4 kg
(20-80 lb) were restrained inappropriately in seat belts, and that the
most prevalent form of restraint shifted from seat belts to child
restraints with harnesses. Of note, by the end of 2002, 27 percent of
children weighing between 18.6 and 22.7 kg (41-50 lb) were restrained
in child restraints with harnesses. These children were of weights
typically above the manufacturer's recommended limit for those
restraints. In developing an appropriate minimum breaking strength
requirement for webbing used in child restraint harnesses, NHTSA
considered the CHOP study and assumed the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
weight of 23.4 kg (51.6 pounds) to be representative of a heavier child
in a harness-type restraint.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For most children weighing more than 18 kg, belt-positioning
booster seats are used with vehicle lap and shoulder belts. Many
belt-positioning booster seats are designed for dual use as a
toddler restraint. A toddler restraint is a forward-facing child
restraint system, generally recommended for children weighing 30-40
pounds, that has its own internal harness system to restrain the
child. These restraints are dependent on the vehicle's belts or
LATCH system to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. The
harness is designed be removed by the consumer when the child
restraint is to be used with a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt as a
belt-positioning booster (typically when the child weighs 40
pounds).
\8\ Winston et al., ``Shifts in Child Restraint Use According to
Child Weight in the United States From 1999 to 2002,'' 47th Annual
Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine,
September 22, 2003.
\9\ NHTSA is aware that Britax manufactures forward-facing child
restraints that are certified for children weighing up to 65 pounds,
and has a restraint that is recommended for children up to 80
pounds. However, all other forward-facing child restraints (with
internal harnesses) are certified for children up to 40 pounds. To
account for a safety margin, our analysis is based on calculations
assuming that a child weighing 50 pounds will be restrained by the
harness webbing. We believe that 50 pounds represents a reasonable
upper weight for these calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Harness Webbing. NHTSA is proposing a minimum breaking strength
requirement of 11,000 N for new harness webbing. The 11,000 N proposal
is based on the following rationale.
NHTSA examined the breaking strength requirements for Type 3 seat
belt assemblies used prior to 1979, in conjunction with FMVSS No. 213
harness webbing compliance test data for the years 2000-2002, in
developing the proposed 11,000 N breaking strength requirement for
harness webbing. The breaking strength requirements for Type 3 seat
belt assemblies ranged from 1,500 pounds (6,670 N) for webbing in
pelvic and upper torso restraints to 4,000 pounds (17,793 N) for
webbing in seat back retainers. The proposed breaking strength
requirement of 11,000 N for harness webbing falls within this range of
values, and appears to be practicable and reasonable based on the
compliance data results discussed below.
NHTSA examined harness webbing compliance data for 109 child
restraint systems collected from 2000 to 2002. A summary of this
compliance data has been placed in the docket.
These compliance data show that 92 percent (100 out of 109) of the
harness webbing comply with the proposed 11,000 N minimum breaking
strength requirement. The highest unabraded harness webbing strength
was measured to be 22,517 N. The lowest was 6,097 N. The median
unabraded harness webbing strength was 12,594 N, with the average being
13,519 N. Based on these data and an examination of the Type 3 seat
belt assembly strength requirements used prior to 1979, NHTSA
tentatively concludes that a minimum breaking strength of 11,000 N for
new harness webbing would be reasonable. Importantly, there have been
no real-world reports of harness webbing failures that would lead the
agency to believe that more stringent strength requirements are
necessary.
Exposed Harness Webbing. Similar to the proposal discussed earlier
regarding requirements for the strength of tether webbing after
abrasion, exposure to light and to micro-organisms, this NPRM would
also require harness webbing to meet minimum strength requirements
after exposure to those conditions. We propose not changing the
percentages now used in S5.4.1 to calculate the required minimum
strength of the exposed webbing. These percentages are: 75% (abrasion);
60% (exposure to light); and 85% (exposure to micro-organisms). Since
we are proposing that new harness webbing should meet a minimum
strength requirement of 11,000 N, the proposed minimum strength
requirements for exposed harness webbing are: 8,200 N (abrasion), 6,600
N (exposure to light), and 9,300 N (exposure to micro-organisms).
Abrasion. The harness webbing compliance data indicate that the
median abraded harness webbing strength was 11,748 N, with the average
being 12,630 N. One hundred and five (105) of the 109 harness webbing
samples tested in fiscal years 2000 to 2002 met the proposed 8,200 N
minimum strength requirement for abraded harness webbing.
Exposure to Light. The exposure to light test data for the 109
samples (the same unabraded or original harness
[[Page 37736]]
webbing samples as discussed above) have also been placed in the
docket. The proposed minimum strength requirement for harness webbing
after exposure to light is 6,600 N. One hundred and three (103) of the
109 harness webbing after exposure to light measure above 6,600 N. Of
the 109 harness webbings exposed to light that were evaluated, the
highest exposed to light harness webbing strength was 22,072 N, while
the lowest was 4,005 N. The median light exposed harness webbing
strength was 10,636 N, with the average being 11,287 N.
Only one of the 109 harness webbing evaluated failed to meet the
current 60 percent exposure to light test requirement. Only the Cosco
and five other samples (6 out of 109) would not meet the proposed 6,600
N minimum strength requirement for harness webbing after exposure to
light.
Micro-organisms. S5.1 (f) of FMVSS No. 209 states: ``Note: This
test shall not be required on webbing made from material which is
inherently resistant to micro-organisms.'' Currently, manufacturers use
nylon or polyester material for there harness webbing and, therefore,
the agency has no data for micro-organisms tests for harness webbing.
However, the standard does not preclude manufacturers from using
biodegradable materials, and in the future manufacturers may use less
resistant harness webbing material. Accordingly, the agency is
proposing webbing strengths of 11,000 N and 9,300 N for new and for
harness webbing exposed to micro-organisms, respectively.
Harmonization With Other Standards
For possible harmonization with other standards on this proposal,
the agency evaluated the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(ECE) Regulation 44 `` Restraining devices for child occupants of
power-driven vehicles (Child restraint system). A summary of the ECE
Reg. 44 requirements for webbing is: (1) The breaking load not to have
less than 75 percent of the average of the loads determined in the
test, (2) the breaking load shall be not less than 3,600 N to restrain
children with mass up to18 kg, 5,000 N to restrain children with mass
from 15 to 25 kg, and 7,200 N to restrain children with mass from 22 to
36 kg.
In addition to the strength requirements, the test conditions and
tests for the two standards are different. For example, ECE uses room
temperature, light exposure, cold, heat, water, and abrasion for
webbing conditioning. On the other hand, NHTSA uses light exposure,
micro-organisms, and abrasion for webbing conditioning. In addition,
ECE uses Xenon for exposure to light test, NHTSA uses Carbon Arc and
Soda-lime glass (for polyester) for exposure to light test. For
abrasion test, ECE uses 1,000 cycles with 1 kg mass and 5,000 cycles
for 0.5 kg mass at a rate of 30 cycles per minute. NHTSA uses 2,500
cycles at a rate of 18 cycles per minute with 1.5 kg mass for harness
(webbing contacts the child) webbing and 2.35 kg mass for tether
(webbing does not contact the child) webbing. ECE requires rigid
attachments to secure a CRS to lower vehicle anchorages. NHTSA does not
require rigid attachments to secure a CRS to lower vehicle anchorages.
ECE does not differentiate between the strap for harness and the strap
for tether webbing, while NHTSA does. ECE specifies webbing breaking
strength after conditioning, and limits the degradation level for any
conditioning at 75 percent of the original breaking strength. NHTSA,
consistent with FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' specifies
webbing breaking strength before and after conditioning, and at
different degradation levels for each conditioning. While ECE specifies
webbing breaking strength requirements based on mass of a child, NHTSA
specifies webbing breaking strength requirements based on the upper
mass limit of the heaviest child likely to use a restraint system.
The proposed changes are intended to be standard maintenance, and
are a small part of the FMVSS No. 213. The differences in conditioning,
use, and testing would make it very difficult to harmonize only the
webbing breaking strengths requirements between the two standards. At
this time, the agency is proposing to maintain consistency with
existing FMVSS No. 209 requirements. As opportunity permits, the agency
will continue to look for ways to harmonize this standard with ECE Reg.
44 and other international child restraint system standards.
III. Weight Used To Abrade Tether Webbing
Today's document clarifies the text of the standard to determine
what weight is used to abrade the tether webbing used in a child
restraint system for the abrasion test.
S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 requires that child restraint belt
webbing must meet breaking strength requirements after being abraded
pursuant to a procedure specified in S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209.
S5.1(d)'s abrasion procedure requires that belt webbing be drawn across
two edges of a hexagonal steel bar by an oscillating drum, with one end
of the webbing sample attached to the drum and the other attached to a
weight with a specified mass. Two different weights are specified:
One end of the webbing (A) shall be attached to a mass (B) of
2.35 [kilogram (kg)] .05 kg, except that a mass of 1.5
kg .05 kg shall be used for webbing in pelvic and upper
torso restraints of a belt assembly used in a child restraint
system.
A tether strap used to attach a child restraint to the vehicle is
neither a pelvic nor upper torso restraint, and therefore does not fall
within the exclusion allowing for use of the 1.5 kg mass. Thus, the
2.35 kg mass is used to abrade tether webbing. Today's document would
amend present S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 to specifically refer to the
2.35 kg mass as that used in the abrasion test to abrade webbing used
to attach a child restraint to a vehicle's LATCH system (tether
webbing). (The proposed change is set forth in proposed S5.4.1(b).) The
agency believes that webbing connecting the child restraint system to a
LATCH system (tether webbing) should be subjected to the weight of the
higher mass because installation and removal of the child seat exposes
the webbing to greater potential for abrasion, and because the webbing
used for the LATCH attachments must restrain the mass of both the child
and the child restraint system. Thus, the LATCH webbing needs to be
stronger than harness webbing. Use of the 2.35 kg mass would better
ensure that the webbing is strong enough to withstand the forces
generated by the child restraint and the restrained child in a crash
over the lifetime of the restraint and through the hands of successive
owners. Comments are requested on this issue.
To the extent that child restraint manufacturers do not now use
webbing that meets the standard's strength requirements when abraded
with the 2.35 kg mass for LATCH attachments, comments are requested on
the leadtime that is needed to make the change to the webbing.
Presumably stronger webbing will have to be used for the LATCH
attachments.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides criteria for determining whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive
[[Page 37737]]
Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This proposed rule was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. The rulemaking action is also not considered to
be significant under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
The agency tentatively concludes that this rulemaking action would
not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million. The agency is
proposing to establish minimum breaking strength requirements for
webbing used in child restraint systems. The agency estimates that most
child restraint systems would meet these proposed requirements. NHTSA
estimates that the cost of webbing material that would meet the
proposed requirements is only about $.10 per foot. Thus, the impacts of
this rulemaking are so minor so as not to warrant the preparation of a
full regulatory evaluation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), the agency must determine the impact of its proposal
or final rule on small businesses. The Small Business Administration's
regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a
business entity ``which operates primarily within the United States.''
(13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if
the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The rational for this certification is that most child
restraint systems would meet the proposed requirements. For
manufacturers producing child restraints that do not meet the proposed
minimum strength requirements, it would not be difficult for these
manufacturers to obtain and use complying webbing on their child
restraints.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this proposed rule would not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a
regulation with federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that the proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would not have any substantial effects on the States, the current
Federal-State relationship, or the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This proposed amendment would not have any retroactive effect.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the extent that the State requirement
imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles
procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure
for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule
would not require any collections of information as defined by the OMB
in 5 CFR Part 1320.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards
in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.\10\ Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Public Law 104-113, codified at 15 U.S.C. 272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37738]]
There are no relevant voluntary consensus standards available at
this time. However, the agency will consider any such standards when
they become available.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with a base
year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the gross domestic product
price deflator for the year 2004 results in about $118 million (115.5 /
98.11 x $100 million). Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
The agency has tentatively concluded that this proposed rule would
not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $118 million
annually. Because this proposed rule would not have a $118 million
effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires Federal agencies to write all
notices in plain language. Application of the principles of plain
language includes consideration of the following questions:
--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Public Participation
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21)
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments to the docket
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web
site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/
Info'' to obtain instructions for filing your comments electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued),
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
2. On that page, click on ``search.''
3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example:
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.''
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable.
[[Page 37739]]
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new
material.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Part 571 as follows:
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. S5.4.1 of Sec. 571.213 would be amended by redesignating
paragraphs (a) through (c) as paragraphs (b) through (d), adding a new
paragraph (a), and revising the re-designated paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213; child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.4.1 Performance requirements. The webbing of belts provided with
a child restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle
or to restrain the child within the system shall--
(a) Have a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less
than 15,000 N in the case of webbing used to secure a child restraint
system to the tether and lower anchorages of a child restraint
anchorage system, and not less than 11,000 N in the case of the webbing
used to secure a child to a child restraint system. ``New webbing''
means webbing that has not been exposed to abrasion, light or micro-
organisms as specified elsewhere in this section.
(b)(1) After being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or
S5.3(c) of FMVSS 209 (Sec. 571.209), have a breaking strength of not
less than 11,200 N for webbing used to secure a child restraint system
to the tether and lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage
system and 8,200 N for webbing used to secure a child to a child
restraint system, when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS 209.
(2) A mass of 2.35 .05 kg shall be used in the test
procedure in S5.1(d) of FMVSS 209 for webbing used to secure a child
restraint system to the tether and lower anchorages of a child
restraint anchorage system. The mass is shown as (B) in Figure 2 of
FMVSS 209.
(c)(1) After exposure to the light of a carbon arc and tested by
the procedure specified in S5.1(e) of FMVSS 209 (Sec. 571.209), have a
breaking strength of not less than 9,000 N for webbing used to secure a
child restraint system to the tether and lower anchorages of a child
restraint anchorage system and 6,600 N for webbing used to secure a
child to a child restraint system, and shall have a color retention not
less than No. 2 on the Geometric Gray Scale published by the American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, Post Office Box 886,
Durham, NC.
(2) After being subjected to micro-organisms and tested by the
procedures specified in S5.1(f) of FMVSS 209 (Sec. 571.209), shall
have a breaking strength not less than 12,700 N for webbing used to
secure a child restraint system to the tether and lower anchorages of a
child restraint anchorage system and 9,300 N for webbing used to secure
a child to a child restraint system.
* * * * *
Issued: June 23, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-12875 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P