Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84514-84623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26082]

[[Page 84513]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 232

December 5, 2023

Part IV

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 Part 571

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 84514]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0040]
RIN 2127-AL34

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) regarding child restraint systems. The amendments, mandatory in
one year, modernize the standard by, among other things, updating CRS
owner registration program requirements, labeling requirements on
correctly using child restraints, requirements for add-on school bus-
specific child restraint systems, and provisions for NHTSA's use of
test dummies in NHTSA compliance tests. Amendments mandatory in three
years include adding a new FMVSS that updates to standard seat
assemblies on which NHTSA tests child restraint systems for compliance
with frontal crash performance requirements. This final rule fulfills a
mandate of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
21) that directs NHTSA to update the standard seat assembly. The
purpose of this final rule is to ensure continued effectiveness of
child restraint systems in current and future vehicles.

DATES:
Effective date: February 5, 2024.
IBR date: The incorporation by reference of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
as of February 5, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain other
publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of
February 6, 2012.
Compliance date: The compliance date for the amendments to FMVSS
No. 213 is December 5, 2024. The compliance date for meeting FMVSS No.
213b is December 5, 2026. Optional early compliance with the standards
is permitted.
Reconsideration date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration
of this rule, your petition must be received by January 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your
complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further
information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this
preamble.
Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is
able to search the electronic form of all documents 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 https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:
202-366-6345). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita or Matthew
Filpi, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992). Address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213,
``Child restraint systems,'' and adds FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint
systems; Mandatory applicability beginning December 5, 2026.'' The
amendments to FMVSS No. 213, mandatory in one year, modernize the
standard by, among other things, updating CRS owner registration
program requirements, labeling requirements on correctly using child
restraints, requirements for add-on school bus-specific child restraint
systems, and provisions for NHTSA's use of test dummies in NHTSA
compliance tests. FMVSS No. 213b, mandatory in three years, includes
those amendments and updates the standard seat assembly on which NHTSA
tests child restraint systems for compliance with frontal crash
performance requirements. This final rule fulfills a MAP-21 that
directs NHTSA to update the standard seat assembly. The purpose of this
final rule is to ensure continued effectiveness of child restraint
systems in current and future vehicles.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Safety Need and NHTSA Strategies
a. 2020 Fatalities
b. NHTSA Strategies
1. Increase CRS Use
2. Increase Correct Use
3. Strengthen FMVSS No. 213 and Address Safety Defects
III. Statutory Authority
IV. Guiding Principles
V. Overview of the NPRM and Comments Received
VI. Updating the Representative Standard Seat Assembly
a. Seat Geometry
1. Seat Back Angle
2. Seat Pan Angle
3. Seat Pan Length
4. Seat Back Height
b. Rear Seat Cushion Characteristics
1. Thickness--Seat Back Cushion
2. Thickness--Seat Bottom Cushion
3. Foam Stiffness
4. Miscellaneous Issues
c. Means for Attaching a CRS
1. Seat Belts
2. Child Restraint Anchorage System
d. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Test Results
e. Miscellaneous Issues
1. Addition of a Rebound Support Surface
2. Truncating Head Acceleration Time Histories
3. Drawing Changes
f. Why NHTSA Has Not Adopted a Floor (Reiteration)
VII. Retaining the Type 1 (Lap Belt) Installation Requirement
a. CRSs for Use in Older Vehicles
b. Installing Harnesses
VIII. Communicating With Today's Caregivers
a. The CRS Owner Registration Program
1. Background
2. Comments to the NPRM and NHTSA's Responses
3. Other Issues

[[Page 84515]]

4. Summary
b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs
1. Background
2. Labeling by Mode Use
3. Increasing the Forward-Facing Weight Recommendation
4. Increasing the Belt-Positioning Seat Weight Recommendation
5. Suggested Additional Booster Seat Labeling
6. Other Recommendations About Labels
7. Summary
IX. Streamlining NHTSA's Use of Dummies in Compliance Tests To
Reflect CRS Use Today
a. Introduction
b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 10-13.6 kg (22-30 lb)
c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb)
d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 18-29.5 kg (40-65 lb)--Use
of the HIII-6YO Dummy
e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII-3YO Dummy in CRSs Used Rear-
Facing
f. Test Procedure Issues Raised by Commenters
g. Table Summarizing Dummy Selection Criteria
X. School Bus Child Restraint Systems
XI. Corrections and Other Minor Amendments
a. Corrected Reference
b. Section 5.1.2.2, Section 5.4.1.1, and Figure 2
c. Table to S5.1.3.1(a) and Test Configuration II
d. Updating Reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1
e. Section S5.9(a)
f. Table S5.3.2
g. Tether Tension Range
h. Clarifying the FMVSS No. 213a and the 40 lb Cut Off
XII. Beyond the Scope of the Rulemaking
XIII. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising From Research Findings
a. CRSs Associated With Submarining or Ejection
b. Should infant carriers' height limits better align with their
weight limits?
c. Virtual Models for CRS Fit
XIV. Lead Time and Compliance Dates
XV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
XVI. Appendices to the Preamble

I. Executive Summary

This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,''
\1\ and adds FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint systems; Mandatory
applicability beginning December 5, 2026.'' The amendments to FMVSS No.
213, mandatory in one year, modernize the standard by updating the CRS
owner registration program, labeling requirements instructing consumers
on correct use of child restraints, requirements for add-on school bus-
specific child restraint systems, and provisions for NHTSA's use of
test dummies in NHTSA compliance tests. FMVSS No. 213b, mandatory on
December 5, 2026, includes those requirements and updates the standard
seat assembly on which NHTSA tests child restraint systems for
compliance with frontal crash performance requirements. In updating the
standard seat assembly, this final rule fulfills a statutory mandate
set forth in MAP-21 directing the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by
delegation) to amend the standard seat assembly specifications in FMVSS
No. 213 to better simulate a single representative motor vehicle rear
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 49 CFR 571.213, ``Child restraint systems.'' All references
to subparagraphs in this preamble are to FMVSS No. 213 unless
otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has amended FMVSS No. 213 and issued FMVSS No. 213b for plain
language reasons relating to the compliance dates of the amendments.
This final rule includes amendments that can be implemented in one
year, which NHTSA has set forth in the amended FMVSS No. 213. The
change to the standard seat assembly is incorporated in FMVSS No. 213b,
which the agency is providing a three-year lead time for
implementation. Because this final rule has a number of different
compliance dates for the amendments to FMVSS No. 213 and the
incorporation of the new standard seat assembly, and permits optional
early compliance with the rule, the regulatory text would be highly
complex if the amendments were combined, and effective dates parceled
out, in a single standard. NHTSA decided the requirements would be
easier to read and understand if the agency issued amendments becoming
effective in one year in FMVSS No. 213, and established FMVSS No. 213b
to include those FMVSS No. 213 amendments and the standard seat
assembly requirements that become effective in three years.
Accordingly, FMVSS No. 213 applies to CRSs manufactured before
December 5, 2026. FMVSS No. 213b applies to CRSs manufactured on or
after December 5, 2026. FMVSS No. 213 will sunset when FMVSS No. 213b
becomes mandatory in three years.

Overview of This Final Rule

NHTSA published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding
this final rule on November 2, 2020 (85 FR 69388, Docket No. NHTSA-
2020-0093). This final rule adopts almost all the proposals in the
NPRM, with some adjustments in response to comments. There were 29
comments to the docket. The NPRM generally received wide support from
commenters. We point out the main subjects of this final rule below.
The goal of this rule is to ensure the continued effectiveness of CRSs
in current and future vehicles, thereby reducing the unreasonable risk
of fatality and injury to children in motor vehicle crashes.
1. As directed by Sec. 31501(b) of MAP-21, NHTSA amends the
standard seat assembly (S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii)) so that it more closely
resembles ``a single representative motor vehicle rear seat.'' The
updated seat has seat cushions (consisting of foam and a cover), a
specified geometry, and a child restraint anchorage system \2\ and seat
belt systems for attaching child restraints. The seat belts are a Type
2 seat belt, also known as a lap/shoulder or 3-point seat belt, and a
Type 1 (lap seat belt) system. In response to comments, this final rule
fine-tunes some features of the updated standard seat assembly and
updates some test procedures to reduce potential sources of
variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Commonly called ``LATCH,'' which refers to Lower Anchors and
Tethers for Children, a term industry developed to refer to the
child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for motor
vehicles (49 CFR 571.225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems''). A
child restraint anchorage system consists of two lower anchorages,
and one upper tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a
rigid round rod, or ``bar,'' onto which a hook, a jaw-like buckle or
other connector can be snapped. The bars are located at the
intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The upper
tether anchorage is a ring-like object, bar or webbing loop to which
the upper tether of a child restraint system can be attached. FMVSS
No. 213 requires CRSs to be equipped with attachments that enable
the CRS to attach to the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Under this final rule, NHTSA will test child restraint systems
with internal components \3\ that restrain the child for compliance
while the CRS is attached to the updated standard seat assembly with a
Type 2 belt.\4\ However, in response to comments, the rule retains
until September 1, 2029, the requirement that these CRSs must meet the
standard's requirements when attached to the updated standard seat
assembly with a Type 1 belt (S5.3.2).\5\ This provision will provide
time for on-road vehicles to change over to a passenger vehicle fleet
that will have Type 2 belts in nearly all rear seats. The purpose of
this requirement is to ensure the continued availability of CRSs that
can be used in older model vehicles that only have Type 1 belts in rear
passenger designated seating positions. Further, harnesses will
continue to be tested

[[Page 84516]]

only with a Type 1 belt, and this requirement will not sunset.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ These internal components that restrain the child can be an
internal harness, a fixed surface, or a movable surface.
\4\ They are also subject to testing while attached with
components of the LATCH system, which is a requirement previously
established in FMVSS No. 213.
\5\ ``Type 1'' and ``Type 2'' seat belt assemblies are defined
in FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies.''
\6\ A ``harness'' is defined in Standard 213 as a combination
pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists
primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar
material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure for
the child (S4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. This final rule reduces the restrictions on the content and
format of the CRS owner registration form manufacturers must provide
with new CRSs for purposes of direct recall notifications (S5.8). The
amendment will make it easier for parents and caregivers to register
CRSs with manufacturers. It makes FMVSS No. 213 more responsive to the
communication preferences and practices of today's parents and provides
greater flexibility to manufacturers in responding to those
preferences. The intent is to increase recall remedy rates.
4. This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213's labeling requirements so
that manufacturers have more flexibility in informing parents how to
correctly use child restraints (S5.5), provided the following limits
and all other labeling requirements are met. It directs manufacturers
to label CRSs with information on the maximum height and weight of the
children who can safely occupy the system (S5.5.2(f)) for each mode in
which the CRS can be used (rear-facing, forward-facing, booster). This
is a change from the current requirement which only requires
manufacturers to provide an overall weight and height of the children
who can occupy the CRS. This final rule also specifies that the
forward-facing mode of a CRSs that can be used forward-facing may only
be recommended \7\ for children with a minimum weight of 12 kg (26.5
lb). The minimum weight of 12 kg (26.5 lb) is an increase over the
current threshold of 9 kg (20 lb) (S5.5.2(k)(2)). The weight threshold
of 12 kg (26.5 lb) is the weight of a 95th percentile one-year-old.\8\
Thus, for example, for convertible \9\ child restraints systems, a
manufacturer must use a turnaround weight of not less than 12 kg (26.5
lb). This change will increase the number of children under age 1
transported rear-facing, which is critical to child safety. Children
under age 1 must be transported rear-facing because, until at least age
1, their neck is not developed enough to withstand crash forces imposed
by their head when positioned forward-facing in a frontal crash. When
riding rear-facing, they can take the brunt of the crash forces through
their back, which is stronger than the neck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ When we describe a child restraint as ``recommended for'' or
``labeled for'' children of a certain height or weight range, we
mean the child restraint manufacturer is selling, marketing,
labeling or otherwise describing the CRS as suitable for children in
that height or weight range.
\8\ A 50th percentile 1-year-old weighs 9.9 kg (22 lb).
\9\ A convertible CRS is a type of CRS with an internal harness
to secure the child that can be used rear-facing and forward-facing.
It is used rear-facing with infants (or small toddlers if the CRS
weight recommendations allow it), and, forward-facing with older and
larger children. The CRS manufacturer instructs the consumer when to
turn the convertible CRS around to face forward, based on the weight
of the child (``turnaround'' weight).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, this rule specifies that booster seats may only be
recommended for children with a minimum weight of 18.4 kg (40 lb),
which increases the current threshold of 30 lb (S5.5.2(k)(2)).\10\ This
change increases the likelihood that 3- and 4-year-olds will be
transported in CRSs with an internal harness which better protects them
at that young age than booster seats.\11\ Children will still
transition to booster seats, but just when they are a little larger.
The purpose of these labeling provisions is to increase the likelihood
that caregivers will use CRSs in the safest possible ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ An 18.4 kg (40 lb) threshold corresponds generally to the
weight of a 97th percentile 3-year-old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and an
85th percentile 4-year-old.
\11\ Booster seats are and continue to be a critical type of
child restraint needed to restrain children properly in vehicles. As
noted earlier, NHTSA instructs caregivers that children should be
restrained in a CRS for the child's age and size. From birth through
adulthood, children should be restrained first using a CRS used
rear-facing, then a forward-facing CRS, then a booster seat, and
finally, the vehicle's seat belts. https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. This final rule makes the following changes to simplify and make
more representative the agency's use of test dummies in compliance
tests (S7). For a CRS recommended for use rear-facing by children
weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb), it will be subject to NHTSA
testing while rear-facing with just the 12-month-old child test dummy
(Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI-12MO)) and will no longer
be subject to rear-facing tests with the Hybrid III 3-year-old (HIII-
3YO) test dummy.\12\ This change better aligns the dummy used in tests
of infant carriers \13\ with the size and weight of children typically
restrained in infant carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Dummy selection is also done by height. Details of the
dummy selection is discussed later in the preamble. See Table 13 of
this preamble.
\13\ An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed to be
readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It has a carrying handle
that enables caregivers to tote the CRS plus child outside of the
vehicle. Some come with a base that stays inside the vehicle onto
which the carrier attaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This rule also specifies that CRSs labeled for children weighing
13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb) will not be tested with the 22 lb
CRABI-12MO.\14\ This change makes NHTSA's compliance tests more
reflective of real-world CRS use, as discussed in sections below
(Section IX.b). This final rule adopts the proposed procedure for
positioning the 3-year-old child test dummy's legs when the dummy is
rear-facing. The procedure is similar, if not identical, to that
currently used by many manufacturers. For CRSs recommended for children
in the 18.2 kg to 29.5 kg (40 to 65 lb) weight range, NHTSA amends
FMVSS No. 213 to specify testing solely with the Hybrid III-6-year-old
(HIII-6YO) child dummy and no longer with the older Hybrid 2 version of
the dummy (H2-6YO). The purpose of these amendments is to heighten the
assessment of CRS performance in protecting a child occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ If the CRS were also labeled as suitable for use by
children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), then the CRS would be
subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO. Dummy selection is also done
by height. Details discussed later in the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213 to permit more types of
add-on \15\ CRSs specially designed for exclusive use on school buses
than currently permitted. The intent is to facilitate the availability
of child restraints that are only used on school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ ``Add-on child restraint system'' is defined in S4 of FMVSS
No. 213 as ``any portable child restraint system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM

For the convenience of the reader, we highlight below the
noteworthy differences between the NPRM and this final rule. More minor
changes are not highlighted here but are discussed in the sections
relevant to the topic (e.g., use of a lap shield when using the HIII-
6YO weighted dummy in belt-positioning seats). All amendments are
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.
The final rule differs from the 2020 NPRM by:
Making minor changes (many of which were suggested by
commenters) to the proposed standard seat assembly design (specifying
stronger parts, tolerances, etc.) to strengthen its design and remove
potential sources of variability;
Making conforming changes and corrections to the drawing
package for the updated standard seat assembly;
Retaining the current requirement that child restraint
systems be capable of anchoring to a vehicle seat by way of a Type 1
(lap) belt until September 1, 2029, to ensure the availability of CRSs
to parents and caregivers that have older model vehicles;

[[Page 84517]]

Retaining a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that child
harnesses will be tested with a Type 1 seat belt installation; and,
Not adopting a provision to use the 12-month-old CRABI
(CRABI-12MO) dummy when testing child restraints that can be used in a
forward-facing mode, provided that when the CRS is recommended for use
forward-facing, it is recommended forward-facing only with children
weighing a minimum of 12 kg (26.5 lb).

Estimated Benefits and Costs

This final rule provides safety benefits, with some temporary costs
and long-term savings. The agency estimates potentially 0.7 to 2.3
lives will be saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical severity
injuries prevented with some labeling changes in this final rule. NHTSA
cannot quantify the possible safety benefits of some amendments to the
standard at this time. NHTSA estimates a one-time cost of $9,300 for
each manufacturer that chooses to purchase or produce an updated
standard seat assembly. This cost impact is considered minimal when
distributed among the hundreds of thousands of CRSs that will be sold
by each manufacturer. There is a temporary (3 years) additional yearly
cost for testing CRSs with Type 1 seat belts of $5,198,000. NHTSA also
estimates annual test cost savings of $3,091,200 for the current number
of infant carrier models (10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb)) in the market
that will no longer be tested with the HIII-3YO and the CRSs that can
be used forward-facing that will no longer be tested with the CRABI-
12MO. This is a net annual cost increase of $2,116,100 for each of the
first three years and a net annual cost savings of $3,091,200 per year
after the first three years.
Updating the Standard Seat Assembly and Testing With Type 2 Belts
The updates to the sled test and testing with Type 2 belts better
aligns the performance of CRSs in compliance tests to that in real
world crashes. NHTSA believes there would be benefits from making the
FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly more representative of vehicle
rear seats, but quantification of the associated benefits/costs is not
possible at this time due to a lack of data to make such an assessment.
There are only minimal costs involved in changing to the updated
standard seat assembly used by NHTSA to assess CRS compliance.
Manufacturers are not required to use the updated standard seat
assembly, but as a practical matter they usually choose to do so. The
one-time cost of the updated standard seat assembly sled buck is about
$9,300. Whether a manufacturer chooses to build the updated standard
seat assembly itself or uses one at an independent test facility, cost
impacts are minimal when distributed among the hundreds of thousands of
CRSs that will be sold by each manufacturer. We are retaining the Type
1 belt test for an additional 3 years (2029) so there will temporarily
be additional annual test costs of $5,198,000 for testing with the Type
1 belt up to the year 2029.
NHTSA estimates that there will be little or no increased costs to
child restraint systems to meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements when
tested on the updated standard seat assembly. The agency's test data of
representative CRSs in the fleet show that virtually all CRSs would
meet the standard's requirements when tested on the updated standard
seat assembly.
CRS Owner Registration Program
The changes to the registration form provide flexibility to
manufacturers in how they communicate with consumers and will likely
help improve registration rates and recall completion rates. However,
NHTSA cannot quantify the benefits at this time. The agency estimates
there would be no costs associated with the changes as they lessen
restrictions and are optional for manufacturers to implement if their
registration forms comply with current requirements. While the changes
could affect the collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (discussed later in this preamble), there will be no
additional material cost associated with the changes to the
registration form. Manufacturers could use the same cards and just
change the wording on them.
Labeling
The agency believes that the updates to the labeling requirements
will benefit safety by reducing the premature transition of children
from CRSs that can be used rear-facing to CRSs that can be used
forward-facing, and from CRSs that can be used forward-facing to
booster seats. The agency estimates potentially 0.7 to 2.3 lives will
be saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical severity injuries
prevented annually by raising the manufacturer-recommended minimum
child weight for the use of CRSs with internal harness that can be used
forward-facing from 9 kg (20 lb) to 12 kg (26.5 lb). NHTSA also
estimates potentially 1.2 to 4 lives will be saved and 1.6 to 5.2
moderate-to-critical injuries prevented by raising the manufacturer-
recommended minimum child weight for use of booster seats from 13.6 kg
(30 lb) to 18.2 kg (40 lb).
The changes to the labeling requirements will have minimal or no
cost impacts. Manufacturers may provide the recommended child weight
and height ranges for the use of CRSs in a specific installation mode
on existing voluntary labels by simply changing the minimum child
weight limit values. Since this final rule does not require additional
information on the label, the size of the label will not need to be
increased.
There will also be no decrease in sales of forward-facing CRSs with
internal harnesses or of booster seats because of this rule's raising
the minimum child weight limit values for forward-facing CRSs with
internal harnesses and booster seats. Most forward-facing CRSs with
internal harnesses cover a wide child weight range, so the labeling
changes will only affect how consumers use the products and not the
sale of them. For example, consumers will still purchase forward-facing
CRS with internal harnesses but will just wait to use them until the
child is at least one year old. They will still purchase convertible
\16\ CRSs but will delay turning the child forward-facing until the
child is at least one year old. Consumers will still purchase booster
seats but will use them when the child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb) rather
than 13.6 kg (30 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ A convertible CRS is a type of CRS with an internal harness
to secure the child that can be used rear-facing and forward-facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dummies (Also Called Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs))
The updates to how NHTSA will use dummies in the compliance tests
better accords with current CRS designs, best practices, and consumer
use for transporting children compared to the current requirements in
FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot quantify the possible safety benefits at
this time.
While manufacturers are required to certify their products meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested in accordance with the
standard and exercise due care in doing so, they are not specifically
required to test their CRSs the way NHTSA tests child restraints in a
compliance test. Assuming manufacturers choose to conduct the tests
specified in FMVSS No. 213 to make their certifications of compliance,
NHTSA estimates there will be no cost increases associated with the
amendments.

[[Page 84518]]

Some of the changes lessen testing burdens by reducing the extent
of testing with dummies. For example, the rule specifies that CRSs for
children weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) will no longer be
required to certify the seats meet the requirement with the HIII-3YO
dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction in testing cost of $717,600 for the
current number of infant carrier models in the market. Child seats for
children weighing 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb) will no longer be required to
be certified with the CRABI-12MO. The final rule also provides that
CRSs used in the forward-facing mode will no longer be required to be
certified using the CRABI-12MO dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction in
testing cost of $2,373,600 for the forward-facing CRSs that will no
longer be tested with the CRABI-12MO. The positioning procedure for the
legs of the HIII-3YO dummy in CRSs used rear-facing is unlikely to have
cost implications because the procedure is similar, if not identical,
to that currently used by many manufacturers.
NHTSA believes there are only minimal costs associated with NHTSA's
testing CRSs with the HIII-6YO dummy instead of the H2-6YO dummy. This
is because there are likely to be little or no design changes to CRSs
since nearly all the CRSs tested with the HIII-6YO in the updated
standard seat assembly complied with the applicable FMVSS No. 213
requirements.\17\ Some commenters (Graco, JPMA, Dorel and Evenflo)
opposed the proposal as they believe chin-to-chest contacts have not
been resolved. NHTSA's testing showed that CRSs that currently comply
with FMVSS No. 213 using the H2-6YO dummy also met all the performance
requirements in the standard when tested using the HIII-6YO dummy on
the updated standard seat assembly. Manufacturers are increasingly
certifying at least some of their CRS models for older children using
the HIII-6YO dummy rather than the H2-6YO and so for these
manufacturers with these CRSs, the amendment will have no effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ As discussed in the NPRM, of 21 tests with the HIII-6YO on
the new seat assembly, all passed the performance metrics, except
for one that failed head excursion limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

School Bus Child Restraint Systems
The amendments to FMVSS No. 213 include allowing new types of CRSs
manufactured for exclusive use on school bus seats. There may be
benefits associated with the manufacture and sale of CRSs for preschool
and children with special needs, but NHTSA cannot quantify these
benefits at this time.

II. Safety Need and NHTSA Strategies

a. 2020 Fatalities

Of the 38,825 traffic fatalities in 2020 in the United States, 755
were of child passenger vehicle occupants ages 0-14 years old. Of these
755 fatalities, restraint use was known for 680 of the children. Two
hundred eighty-six (286) (42%) were unrestrained, 176 (26%) were
children restrained in a child restraint system, 209 (31%) were
children restrained with a seat belt, and 9 (1%) were children
restrained with an unknown type of restraint.
There were 53 infants (under 1 year old) killed, with restraint use
known for 48 of them. Of these 48 fatalities, 13 (27%) were
unrestrained.
There were 128 children 1 to 3 years old killed, with restraint use
known for 118. Of these 118 fatalities, 39 (33%) were unrestrained.
There were 207 children 4 to 7 years old killed; restraint use was
known for 186. Of these 186 fatalities, 80 (43%) were unrestrained.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Source: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA Strategies

NHTSA reduces child traffic injuries and fatalities through
programs implemented in many program areas.
1. Increase CRS Use
NHTSA is actively involved in increasing CRS use. We conduct
national campaigns to educate the public about the importance of
restraining children with CRSs and work with stakeholders to get these
messages out. These efforts include developing and distributing
training videos, producing public safety announcements and various
campaigns directed to caregivers of children (in English and Spanish),
leveraging all communication resources (such as social media and the
NHTSA website) to provide information to parents and other caregivers.
We teach caregivers about the kinds of restraints that are best
suited to protect child occupants of various ages.\19\ NHTSA recommends
that from birth to 12 months, children ride in a rear-facing car seat,
and from 1 to 3 years they should be rear-facing as long as possible
and then move to a harnessed and tethered forward-facing seat when they
outgrow the rear-facing seat. From ages 4 to 7, children should ride in
the harnessed and tethered forward-facing car seat until they outgrow
the seat, then ride in a booster seat. From ages 8 to 12, children
should be in a booster seat until they are big enough to fit a vehicle
seat belt properly.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The agency uses the term ``car seat'' or ``car safety
seat'' rather than ``child restraint system'' in messages to
caregivers, as the former terms are more commonly known and
understood by laypersons than the latter. Consistent with plain
language principles, this preamble uses these layperson's terms from
time to time.
\20\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA works with State and local authorities to support child
restraint use laws. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law continues the 23
U.S.C. 405(b) Occupant Protection grant program that incentivizes
States to adopt and implement effective occupant protection programs to
reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding
unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles.
To qualify, all States must demonstrate an active network of child
passenger safety inspection stations based on the State's problem
identification. States must provide the total number of planned
inspection stations and/or events in the State; and tell NHTSA how many
of those events serve urban, rural, and at-risk populations. States
must certify that inspection stations are staffed with at least one
current Nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician.
Additionally, to qualify for an Occupant Protection incentive grant,
States must provide plans and projects for recruiting, training, and
maintaining a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians
based on the state's problem identification.
States with seat belt use rates below 90 percent must submit
additional information to qualify, which may include demonstrating that
the State has enacted and is enforcing a primary enforcement seat belt
or child restraint statute and/or that the State has enacted and is
enforcing occupant protection statutes with specified criteria such as
requiring all occupants be secured in an age-appropriate child
restraint.
Trends in Restraint Use \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Sources: NSUBS--National Survey for the Use of Booster
Seats--Multiple years; Enriquez, J. (2021, May). The 2019 national
survey of the use of booster seats (Report No. DOT HS 813 033),
NHTSA 813033 (dot.gov); Li, H.R., & Pickrell, T. (2018, September).
The 2017 National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT
HS 812 617). Washington, DC: NHTSA 812617 (dot.gov); Li, H.R.,
Pickrell, T.M., & KC, S. (2016, September). The 2015 National Survey
of the Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT HS 812 309). Washington,
DC: NHTSA 812309 (dot.gov); Pickrell, T.M., & Choi, E-H. (2014,
June). The 2013 national survey of the use of booster seats. (Report
No. DOT HS 812 037). Washington, DC: NHTSA 812037 (dot.gov);
Pickrell, T.M., & Ye, T.J. (2013, April). The 2011 National Survey
of the Use of Booster Seats. (Report No. DOT HS 811 718).
Washington, DC: NHTSA 811718 (dot.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a general trend we see more children staying in each CRS type

[[Page 84519]]

longer. Older/heavier children are restrained in CRS used rear-facing,
forward-facing CRS and booster seats longer before transitioning to the
next kind of CRS partly because of the increased availability of CRSs
sold for larger children, CRS best practice recommendations such as
those cited above from NHTSA, and State child restraint laws. The
trends below are positive developments aligned with increased safety
outcomes.
Looking at restraint type use by age from 2011 to 2019 we see the
following trends:

Children <1 year old
Increase of CRSs used rear-facing from 83% to 91.7%
Decrease of forward-facing CRS use from 11% to 5.7%
(decrease mostly because more children of this age group are remaining
rear facing longer)
Children 1-3 years old
Increase of CRSs used rear-facing from 7% to 17.4%
Decrease of forward-facing with internal harness CRS use
from 75% to 66.3% (decrease mostly because more children of this age
group are remaining in rear-facing longer)
Decrease of belt-positioning seat (BPS) use from 11% to
7.5% (decrease due to more children of this age group are remaining in
forward-facing with internal harness CRSs longer)
Children 4-7 years old
Increase of forward-facing CRS use from 18% to 32.5%
Decrease of BPS use from 46% to 37% (decrease due to more
children of this age group remaining in forward-facing with internal
harness CRSs longer)
Decrease of seat belt only use from 25% to 16% (decrease
due to more children of this group remaining in BPSs or forward-facing
with internal harness CRSs longer)

Looking at restraint type use by child weight from 2011 to 2019 we
see the following trends:

Children 0-20 lb
Increase of CRS used rear-facing from 89% to 92.4%
Decrease of forward-facing with internal harness CRS use
from 9% to 4.2% (decrease mostly because more children of this weight
group are remaining rear facing longer)
Children 21 to 40 lb
Increase of CRSs used rear-facing from 7% to 15.2%
Decrease of forward-facing CRS use from 61% to 58%
(decrease mostly because more children of this weight group are
remaining rear facing longer)
Decrease of belt-positioning seat (BPS) use from 20% to 9%
(decrease due to more children of this weight range remaining in
forward-facing with internal harness CRSs)
Decrease of seat belt only use from 6% to 5%
Children 41-60 lb
Increase of forward-facing with internal harness CRS use
from 11% to 23.5%
Decrease of BPS use from 45% to 39% (decrease partially
because more children of this weight group are remaining in forward-
facing with internal harness CRSs longer)
Decrease of seat belt only use from 34% to 25.1% (decrease
partially due to more children of this weight range remaining in BPSs
or forward-facing with internal harness CRSs longer)

While trends of CRS use for children 0-4 years old have remained
constant, we have seen an increase in CRS use for older children. NSUBS
data from 2009 and 2019, shows that there's been an increase in CRS use
from 55 to 69.7 percent in children 4-7 years old and 6 to 14.9 percent
in children 8-12 years old. Based on child's weight, there has been an
increase of CRS use from 43 to 62.5 percent among children weighing 41-
60 pounds and an increase from 7 to 15 percent among children weighing
more than 60 pounds.
This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213 to reflect the above trends in
CRS use and design. We have better aligned the certification
requirements for CRSs with the size and weight of children typically
restrained by the various CRS types in use today.
2. Increase Correct Use
NHTSA's programs work to increase correct use of child restraints.
We work to make CRSs easier to use through rulemaking and other means.
FMVSS No. 213 has requirements to ensure caregivers can attach any
child restraint system, other than a school bus child restraint system,
to any vehicle seat using just a seat belt.\22\ The agency has also
established Standard 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' to
require vehicles to have a standardized and easy to use dedicated
anchorage system in certain vehicle rear seating positions that
caregivers can use with a simple one-handed motion to attach a CRS.
FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to have permanently attached components
that can attach to the dedicated system. NHTSA requires child restraint
manufacturers to provide information directly to owners informing them
of the proper use of child restraint systems. NHTSA rates CRSs on their
ease of use in a consumer information program under NHTSA's New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP). The NCAP program not only assists caregivers
when making purchasing decisions, but also incentivizes manufacturers
to improve the ease of correctly using child seats. NHTSA conducts
national campaigns to educate the public about the importance of
buckling children into child restraint systems, supports efforts by
State and local organizations that would like to establish CRS fitting
stations,\23\ and works with partners to train educators that can teach
the public about using child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ NHTSA also has requirements in Standard 208, ``Occupant
crash protection,'' to require seat belts to meet lockability
requirements so that they may be easily locked for use with CRSs.
\23\ These are places within a community where caregivers can
learn how to install and properly use child restraints. Some places
provide a certified technician that provides hands on support,
fitting the caregiver's child seat into their vehicle. To find a CPS
Technician go to https://portalskcms.cyzap.net/dzapps/dbzap.bin/apps/assess/webmembers/secure/manage?webid=SKCMS&pToolCode=CERT-SEARCH&pAdd=Yes (last accessed April 21, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMVSS No. 213 requires manufacturers to provide safety information
labeled on each CRS instructing caregivers on the correct use of the
restraint. This final rule amends the standard to enhance the labeling
requirements. For example, we are improving the labeling requirements
to require manufacturers to provide information on when to transition a
child to each specific mode in which the car seat can be used (rear-
facing, forward-facing, booster). We are requiring that caregivers must
not be instructed to turn children forward-facing until reaching 26.5
lb, and that boosters cannot be recommended for children under 40 lb.
But we are also permitting manufacturers more leeway in how they
communicate with caregivers, so designers can find ways to provide use
instructions that their customers will read, understand, and follow.
3. Strengthen FMVSS No. 213 and Address Safety Defects
NHTSA undertakes rulemaking to ensure child restraint systems are
as protective as possible. We review FMVSS No. 213 regularly and
frequently to see how the standard

[[Page 84520]]

could be strengthened to protect against unreasonable safety risks.
Child restraint systems are highly effective in reducing the
likelihood of death and injury to children in motor vehicle crashes.
NHTSA estimates that, for children less than 1 year old, a child
restraint can reduce the risk of fatality by 71 percent when used in a
passenger car and by 58 percent when used in a pickup truck, van, sport
utility vehicle (SUV), or other multipurpose passenger vehicle (these
non-passenger car vehicles together are known as light truck and van
vehicles, or LTVs). Child restraint effectiveness for children between
the ages of 1 and 4 years old is a very high 54 percent in passenger
cars and 59 percent in LTVs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Traffic Safety Facts--Children 2012 Data (April 2016).
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812491. Last
accessed on January 3, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance requirements that must be met
in a dynamic frontal sled test involving a 48 kilometer per hour (km/h)
(30 mile per hour (mph)) velocity change, which is representative of a
severe crash. Each child restraint system is tested with a dummy while
attached to a standardized seat assembly representative of a passenger
vehicle seat (standard seat assembly).\25\ FMVSS No. 213 has many
safety benefits, a few of which are enumerated here. FMVSS No. 213
requires child restraint systems to limit the amount of inertial load
that can be exerted on the head and chest of the dummy during the
dynamic test. The standard requires child restraint systems to meet
head excursion \26\ limits to reduce the possibility of head injury
from contact with vehicle interior surfaces and ejection. Child
restraint systems must also maintain system integrity (e.g., not
fracture or separate in such a way as to harm a child) and have no
contactable surface that can harm a child in a crash. The standard
ensures belt webbing can safely restrain the child, and that buckles
can be swiftly unlatched after a crash by an adult--but cannot be
easily unbuckled by an unsupervised child. Child restraint systems
other than booster seats and harnesses \27\ must meet performance
requirements when attached to the standard seat assembly with the
vehicle's seat belt, and, in a separate assessment, with only the lower
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.\28\ The CRSs must
meet more stringent head excursion requirements in another test where a
top tether, if provided, may be attached. Belt-positioning (booster)
seats are tested on the standard seat assembly using a Type 2 (lap and
shoulder) belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ FMVSS No. 213 specifies the use of test dummies
representing a newborn, a 12-month-old, 3- and 6-year-old, weighted
6-year-old, and 10-year-old child. The dummies other than the
newborn are equipped with instrumentation measuring crash forces,
but NHTSA restricts some measurements from the weighted 6-year-old
and 10-year-old dummies due to technical limits of the dummies.
\26\ Head excursion refers to the distance the dummy's head
translates forward in FMVSS No. 213's simulated frontal crash test.
\27\ These types of child restraint systems are defined in S4 of
FMVSS No. 213.
\28\ Commonly called ``LATCH,'' which refers to Lower Anchors
and Tethers for Children, a term industry developed to refer to the
child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for motor
vehicles (49 CFR 571.225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems''). A
child restraint anchorage system consists of two lower anchorages,
and one upper tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a
rigid round rod, or ``bar,'' onto which a hook, a jaw-like buckle or
other connector can be snapped. The bars are located at the
intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The upper
tether anchorage is a ring-like object to which the upper tether of
a child restraint system can be attached. FMVSS No. 213 requires
CRSs to be equipped with attachments that enable the CRS to attach
to the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA continues to work to improve FMVSS No. 213. In June 2022,
NHTSA added side impact requirements to the standard.\29\ The agency's
work on side impact requirements involved developing a dynamic sled
test, a new child test dummy, and child injury criteria.\30\ In January
2015, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 225 to improve the ease of use
of the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage systems and of the
tether anchorage.\31\ NHTSA is continuing its work on the Standard 225
rulemaking and will issue a final decision at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Final rule, 87 FR 39234, June 30, 2022, established FMVSS
No. 213a; Child restraint systems--side impact protection. The
compliance date for the requirements is June 30, 2025, with NHTSA
permitting optional early compliance with the requirements.
\30\ The final rule fulfilled a MAP-21 mandate in Sec. 31501(a)
that NHTSA issue a final rule to improve the protection of children
seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.
\31\ Ease-of-use NPRM, 80 FR 3744; January 23, 2015. Initiation
of the rulemaking was part of a 2011 NHTSA priority plan and is
called for by MAP-21 (Sec. 31502(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the agency's work on FMVSS No. 213, this final rule will
modernize the standard, with emphasis on the standard seat assembly. We
believe, however, that the change to the updated standard seat assembly
will not significantly affect the performance of CRSs in meeting FMVSS
No. 213. As discussed in the NPRM preceding this final rule,\32\ NHTSA
tested a wide variety of CRS designs in the market using the updated
standard seat assembly. The CRSs had been certified by their
manufacturers as meeting FMVSS No. 213's performance criteria using the
current standard seat assembly in the standard (which is representative
of designs of older vehicle seats). In the tests on the updated
standard seat assembly, most CRSs also met the standard's performance
requirements.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ NPRM, supra, 85 FR at 69389, col. 3.
\33\ During NHTSA's testing with the updated standard seat
assembly, there were four CRSs models that failed head excursion
limits: Britax Marathon and Britax Frontier reported in this final
rule's Appendix A, as well as the Evenflo Titan Elite and Diono
Radian R120 reported in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1992, NHTSA established a CRS owner registration program in
FMVSS No. 213 \34\ (S5.8) to increase the ``completion rate'' of
recalled restraints, i.e., the percentage of recalled units sold to
consumers for which the consumer contacts the manufacturer for free
remedy of the defect or noncompliance.\35\ With this program, owners
can be directly notified of safety recalls. This final rule improves
the program to increase the likelihood that owners will be motivated to
register with manufacturers to learn directly whether their CRS was
recalled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ 57 FR 41428.
\35\ NHTSA also issued the rule to assist the agency in
determining whether manufacturers met their recall notification
responsibilities under the Safety Act, and to motivate owners to
register CRSs for recall notification purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory Authority

This final rule is issued under the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et
seq.) and MAP-21.

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)

Under the Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation \36\ is
responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.\37\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Safety
Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of
accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance
of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in
an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.''
\38\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum performance
standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\39\ When
prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety information, and consider whether a

[[Page 84521]]

standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the types of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed.\40\ The Secretary must also consider the extent to which
the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic
crashes and associated deaths and injuries.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ The responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards is delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95.
\37\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\38\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
\39\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\40\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. MAP-21

MAP-21 incorporates Subtitle E, ``Child Safety Standards.'' Section
31501(b)(1) of Subtitle E requires that not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary \42\ shall commence a
rulemaking proceeding to amend the standard seat assembly
specifications under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213
to better simulate a single representative motor vehicle rear seat.
Section 31501(b)(2) states that not later than 4 years after the date
of the enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule
pursuant to paragraph (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Authority delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95(p)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. NHTSA's Views

NHTSA is issuing this final rule under Safety Act authority and
MAP-21. Section 31501(b)(2) of MAP-21 directs NHTSA to issue a final
rule amending the standard seat assembly of FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA
believes that, in requiring a final rule amending ``Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213,'' Congress's intent is that the
rulemaking on the standard seat assembly will accord with the
requirements and considerations for FMVSSs under the Safety Act.

IV. Guiding Principles

We undertake our rulemakings on FMVSS No. 213 with the following
principles and considerations in mind. We weigh these factors in
addition to the considerations and requirements for FMVSS specified by
the Safety Act, statutory mandates, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,\43\
and other requirements for agency rulemaking. NHTSA articulated these
guiding principles in the NPRM.\44\ We have announced these principles
in other rulemakings involving the standard.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' September
30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 14094.
\44\ 85 FR at 69404, col. 2. (Discussion of NHTSA's decision not
to raise the crash pulse in FMVSS No. 213's compliance test.)
\45\ See, e.g., final rule, FMVSS No. 213a side impact
requirements, 87 FR at 39243, col. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Child restraint misuse is high, but even with misuse, child
restraints are highly effective in reducing the likelihood of death
and/or serious injury in motor vehicle crashes. As discussed above,
based on real-world data, child restraint effectiveness for children
between the ages 1 to 4 years old is 54 percent in passenger cars and
59 percent in light trucks. The failure to use occupant restraints is a
significant factor in most fatalities resulting from motor vehicle
crashes.
In making regulatory decisions on possible enhancements to Federal
standards, the agency must bear in mind the consumer acceptance of cost
increases to an already highly effective item of safety equipment and
whether an enhancement that could raise the price of the restraints
could potentially have an adverse effect on the sales of this product.
The net effect on safety could be negative if the effect of sales
losses on usage rates exceeds the benefit of the improved performance
of the restraints. To maximize the total safety benefits of extending
and upgrading its restraint requirements, the agency balances those
improvements against the real-world impacts on the price of restraints.
NHTSA also weighs the effects of improved performance on the ease of
correctly using child restraints. We consider whether an amendment may
cause child restraints to become overly complex or frustrating for
caregivers and the risk that a requirement could unintentionally
exacerbate misuse and nonuse of child restraints.

V. Overview of the NPRM and Comments Received

a. Summary of the NPRM

NHTSA published the NPRM for this final rule on November 2, 2020
(85 FR 69388). We extended the comment period to April 5, 2021 (86 FR
47; January 4, 2021) in response to petitions under 49 CFR 553.19 from
the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) and the
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). (This summary is brief
because it mirrors the description of the final rule provided in the
Executive Summary, supra.)
1. NHTSA proposed to update the standard seat assembly used in the
frontal dynamic test.\46\ NHTSA proposed to test CRSs with the Type 2
belt system and to phase out use of the Type 1 belt. NHTSA did not
include a vehicle floor and explained its reasons for denying a
petition for rulemaking that had requested a floor. We discussed in the
NPRM several test programs we conducted to assess the performance of
child restraints on the proposed standard seat assembly.\47\ In one of
the final test series in the NPRM phase, NHTSA performed 40 tests using
24 CRS models across 10 brands available in the marketplace using the
proposed standard seat assembly (V2).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The NPRM included a proposal to incorporate by reference a
drawing package containing detailed drawings of the proposed
standard seat assembly. A description of the materials proposed for
incorporation by reference can be found at 85 FR at 69443, col. 1.
\47\ Section VII of the NPRM preamble, 85 FR 69409-69424.
\48\ During the development of the NPRM the agency worked with
two design levels of the preliminary standard seat assembly and the
term ``V2'' is referring to one of them. The initial standard seat
assembly design (V1) used in some sled tests during the development
of the design only differed from the proposed standard seat assembly
(V2) in minor ways. The initial standard seat assembly used in these
sled tests had a shorter seat back height and slightly different
seat belt and child restraint anchorage locations. NHTSA performed
tests on the proposed standard seat assembly (V2) of some of the
CRSs that were tested on V1 standard seat assembly; results showed
no significant difference in CRS performance on the two standard
seat assemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results showed that changing to the updated standard seat
assembly had almost no effect on the ability of the CRS to pass the
frontal dynamic crash requirements of FMVSS No. 213. Results showed the
following:
Infant carriers and convertibles positioned rear-facing and tested
with the CRABI-12MO or the HIII-3YO dummies: We tested six (6) CRS
models with the CRABI-12MO dummy and tested 4 with the HIII-3YO dummy.
All the child restraints met all the frontal dynamic crash requirements
evaluated during this set of tests.
Forward-facing CRSs tested with the HIII-3YO dummy: We tested one
(1) CRS model with tether attached and two (2) CRS models without
tether attached. All child restraints met all the frontal dynamic crash
requirements evaluated during this set of tests.
Forward-facing CRSs tested with the HIII-6YO dummy: Four (4) CRSs
tested with the tether attached met all the frontal dynamic crash
requirements evaluated during this set of tests. Four (4) CRS models
were tested without the tether attached. All met all the frontal
dynamic crash requirements evaluated during this set of tests.
Forward-facing CRSs tested with the Hybrid III 10-year-old (HIII-
10YO) dummy: One (1) CRS model was tested with the tether attached and
2 CRS models were tested without the use of the tether. The CRS tested
with the tether attached met all frontal dynamic crash requirements
evaluated during this set of tests. The CRSs tested without the tether
met all frontal dynamic crash requirements evaluated during this set

[[Page 84522]]

of tests, except for one that exceeded the head excursion limit.
Booster seats with the HIII-6YO dummy: We tested six (6) booster
seat models and all met all frontal dynamic crash requirements
evaluated during this set of tests.
Booster seats with the HIII-10YO dummy: We tested three (3) booster
seat models and all met all frontal dynamic crash requirements
evaluated during this set of tests.
2. The NPRM proposed to reduce the restrictions on the content and
format of the owner registration form manufacturers must provide with
new CRSs for purposes of direct recall notifications (S5.8).
3. NHTSA proposed to amend labeling requirements so that
manufacturers have more flexibility in informing and instructing
caregivers about correctly using child restraints (S5.5), but with
caveats, e.g., forward-facing CRSs must not be recommended for children
weighing less than 12 kg (26.5 lb) and booster seats must not be
recommended for children weighing less than 18.4 kg (40 lb).
4. NHTSA proposed to streamline the agency's use of test dummies in
compliance tests (S7) to make the dummies more representative of the
children for whom the CRS is recommended. The NPRM proposed to phase
out a provision that permitted, at the manufacturer's choice, an option
of certifying CRSs using the H2-6YO dummy instead of a more advanced
Hybrid III dummy.
5. The NPRM proposed miscellaneous amendments. These included
permitting more types of CRSs designed for exclusive use on school
buses than are currently permitted, updating a reference to an SAE
Recommended Practice J211, and several housekeeping amendments to
delete or clarify various provisions in the standard.
6. The NPRM also requested comment on a separate document
discussing several developments in child passenger safety, including
research studies that raise safety concerns associated with inflatable
belt-positioning seats and a shield-only type of child restraint
emerging in markets overseas.\49\ The document also discusses our
observations that children are outgrowing the height limits of some
rear-facing infant carriers long before they outgrow the weight limits.
NHTSA asked whether height and weight limits should better match.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising from Research
Findings. January 13, 2020. Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0013 at
https://www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Summary of the Comments

The NPRM received over 29 comments or other submissions to the
docket. Commenters included child restraint manufacturers (JPMA, Dorel
Juvenile Group, Graco Children's Products, Britax Child Safety, Inc.,
Cybex, Evenflo, Safeguard/IMMI, BubbleBum); consumer advocates (the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
Safe Ride News (SRN), Safety Belt Safe (SBS), the National Safety
Council, Consumers Reports); research bodies and testing organizations
(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), CHOP, University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), MGA Research
Corporation); vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and associations
(Volvo, the Automotive Safety Council (ASC), the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA), Transport Research Laboratory); and
entities directly involved with pupil transportation (the National
Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT), Salem-Keizer Public
Schools). Additionally, the People's Republic of China submitted a
comment, as did several members of the general public.
Overview of the Comments
There was wide support overall for the NPRM. All commenters on the
issue supported updating the standard seat assembly, but some expressed
concern about specifics of the proposed standard seat assembly. Graco
raised concerns about the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) of
test results using the proposed standard seat assembly and JPMA and
some of its member companies had questions about the cushion foam. Some
commenters addressed technicalities of the proposed standard seat
assembly and/or test conditions and procedures (e.g., limits on belt
webbing elongation, placement of cameras, methods for measuring the
firmness of seat foam). Some suggested ways the proposed standard seat
assembly and test could be revised to reduce potential sources of
variability. Two wanted the Type 1 belt retained on the seat assembly,
as they believed the Type 1 belt test should remain in FMVSS No. 213 to
ensure the availability of child seats to persons owning older vehicles
that only have Type1 belts in rear seating positions.
There was strong support overall for the proposed changes to the
owner registration form and the labeling requirements, but several
consumer advocates cautioned that too much flexibility in form and
content may reduce the familiarity, and utility, of the form and
labels. There was unanimous support for the provision that booster
seats should not be recommended for children under 40 lb, but several
were concerned about shortcomings with a study we had cited. Commenters
overall supported the changes to the agency's use of test dummies in
compliance tests, but JPMA and some individual manufacturers opposed
phasing out the optional use of the H2-6YO dummy.
Many commenters provided input on issues that were outside of the
scope of the rulemaking. Many commenters suggested changes to the
proposed standard seat assembly regarding features they believed should
be included on the standard seat assembly, but which were not proposed,
such as a floor, or a front seat positioned forward of the standard
seat assembly.\50\ Consumer Reports suggested use of a weighted 12-
month-old test dummy. JPMA reiterated a concern it has about Standard
302's flammability resistance requirement incorporated into FMVSS No.
213 (S5.7), and the People's Republic of China commented that it
believes the flammability resistance standard for child restraint
systems is too strict and should be harmonized with international
standards to avoid a large use of flame retardants. Several comments
responded to the January 13, 2020, document discussing NHTSA's concerns
about data related to certain child restraint system designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ The front seat would be used to assess if child restraints
prevent dummy head strikes against the seat back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All issues raised in relevant comments are discussed below in this
preamble. Comments outside the scope of the rulemaking generally will
not be further addressed in this document but are considered by NHTSA
as suggestions for future revisions to FMVSS No. 213.
Some commenters brought up a few test procedures or regulatory
provisions that they believe would make the criteria for determining
compliance with FMVSS No. 213 clearer, or test results more repeatable
and reproducible. NHTSA agrees generally the suggestions have merit but
does not believe they should be adopted in this final rule. The
Administrative Procedure Act requires that interested persons be given
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to comment thereon
prior to an agency's adopting changed requirements as a final rule (5
U.S.C. 553). Thus, to provide interested persons an

[[Page 84523]]

opportunity to comment on possible changes to the test procedures, we
are preparing an NPRM to tighten up some aspects of the adopted
standards. The upcoming NPRM would include: a conforming amendment to
FMVSS No. 213a (side impact protection) that the CRABI-12MO would not
be used forward-facing to test CRSs that are recommended not for use
forward-facing with children weighing less than 12 kg (26.5 lb); a
procedure to ensure tightness of a CRS to consistent levels when there
is insufficient free webbing on which to use a three-prong tension
gauge; and a dummy rear head drop test to calibrate the responses of
the HIII-3YO dummy. The upcoming NPRM would have a comment period that
would provide any interested persons with the chance to comment on the
changes while allowing the agency to moye promptly to incorporate the
changes into FMVSS No. 213 and No. 213b.

VI. Updating the Representative Standard Seat Assembly

This final rule amends the standard seat assembly specified by
FMVSS No. 213 to better simulate ``a single representative motor
vehicle rear seat,'' as directed by Sec. 31501(b) of MAP-21.\51\ The
updated standard seat assembly has one seating position. The updated
standard seat assembly's features are aligned with (and, in many
respects, identical to) the seat assembly used to test child restraint
systems for compliance with FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child Restraint Systems--
Side Impact Protection.'' Comments to this topic supported the
alignment of the sleds in both standards.\52\ This final rule includes
specifications for the geometry of the seat (e.g., seat back angle,
seat pan angle and length, seat back height), seat cushion
characteristics (e.g., stiffness of the cushions and thickness of the
foams), and the means (seat belt systems and child restraint anchorage
system) for attaching a CRS to the seat. The report, ``Development of a
Representative Seat Assembly for FMVSS No. 213,'' September 2016, which
was docketed with the NPRM, explained how we developed the
specifications for the seat.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ This final rule incorporates by reference a final drawing
package with the detailed drawings of this final rule's standard
seat assembly. The drawing package is discussed in detail in this
preamble and can be found in the docket for this final rule and
elsewhere. See the section titled Incorporation by Reference in the
``Regulatory Notices and Analyses'' section of this preamble, infra.
\52\ The 2020 NPRM preceding this final rule sought comment on
the issue of consistency between the seat assemblies used in the
side and frontal impact tests. 85 FR 69394, col. 2. The commenters
responding to this issue strongly supported aligning the two seat
assemblies as reasonably possible. NHTSA also discussed this issue
in the 2022 final rule establishing the MAP-21 CRS side impact
requirements. We explained in that side impact rule that we adopted
a seat assembly that is aligned as possible with the FMVSS No. 213
frontal impact test assembly. 85 FR 39261-39262; June 30, 2022.
\53\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0093-0005.
85 FR at 69397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency used data from a 2012 research program (Vehicle Rear
Seat Study) to assess the representativeness of the current FMVSS No.
213 standard seat assembly and to develop an updated standard seat
assembly.\54\ The Vehicle Rear Seat Study surveyed vehicles in the U.S.
vehicle fleet to compile data on the rear seat environment. The study
measured 43 individual rear seating positions in 24 model year (MY)
2010 vehicles. Measurements were made of features that included seat
back angle and height, seat pan width, stiffness of the seat cushion,
location of seat belts and locations of child restraint anchorage
systems.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study,''
Technical Report, July 2012. Report available in the docket for the
2020 NPRM preceding this final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093).
\55\ 68 FR 37620, June 24, 2003. The 2020 NPRM has more
background on NHTSA's work developing this final rule's updates to
the standard seat assembly (see Section III, 85 FR at 69393).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study measured the vehicles' seat geometry
and anchorage locations using a Seat Geometry Measuring Fixture (SGMF).
The SGMF consisted of two wooden blocks (600 mm x 88 mm x 38 mm) and a
76 mm (3 inches) hinge (see Figure 1 below). To make the rear seat
geometry measurements, the SGMF was positioned on the centerline of
each rear seating position. Point A (see Figure 1), which corresponds
to the hinge location of the SGMF, was the reference point for all
measurements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.000

[[Page 84524]]

a. Seat Geometry

1. Seat Back Angle
This final rule specifies a seat back angle of 20 degrees for the
updated standard seat assembly, as proposed in the NPRM. The Vehicle
Rear Seat Study found that the average seat back angle of the surveyed
vehicles was 20 degrees from vertical, with a standard deviation of 4
degrees.\56\ The seat back angle ranged from a minimum of 9 degrees to
a maximum of 28 degrees from vertical. The value is representative of
the seat back angles found in the vehicle fleet (within one standard
deviation of the average values in the current fleet). No commenter
opposed adopting this seat back angle. The seat back angle will
simplify the change to a updated standard seat assembly because it will
be the same as the angle of the current FMVSS No. 213 test seat
assembly and that of the seat for the side impact test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ The current seat back angle of the FMVSS No. 213 standard
seat assembly is 20 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Seat Pan Angle
This final rule adopts the proposed seat pan angle of 15 degrees.
No commenter opposed adopting this seat pan angle. The measurement is
representative of seat pan angles found in the vehicle fleet (within
one standard deviation of the average values in the current fleet).\57\
The seat pan angle is the same as the angle of the current FMVSS No.
213 standard seat assembly and that of the side impact standard seat
assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ The Vehicle Rear Seat Study found that the average seat pan
angle was 13 degrees from the horizontal, with a standard deviation
of 4 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Seat Pan Length
This final rule adopts the proposed seat pan length of 412 mm (16.2
inches). No commenter opposed adopting this seat pan length dimension.
The measurement is representative of seat pan length found in the
vehicle fleet (within one standard deviation of the average values in
the current fleet).\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ The Vehicle Rear Seat Study found that the average seat pan
length was 16.3 inch (416 mm), with a standard deviation of 38 mm
(1.5 inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Seat Back Height
This final rule adopts the proposed seat back height of 573 mm
(22.5 inches) for the updated standard seat assembly. No commenter
opposed adopting this dimension. The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed
that the average height of the seat back was 688 mm (27 inches) with a
standard deviation of 76 mm (3 inches) when the head restraint was
included and 578 mm (22.7 inches) with a standard deviation of 60 mm
(2.3 inches) when the head restraint was not included in the
measurement.\59\ The final rule's dimension of 573 mm (22.5 in) is
within one standard deviation of the average seat back height when the
head restraint is not included. The updated standard's seat assembly
does not include a head restraint.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ The current FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly has a seat
back height of 20.35 inch (517 mm) and it does not have a head
restraint.
\60\ The final drawings for the updated standard seat assembly
include for optional use an ATD Head Protection Device to protect
the head of the dummy from damage when tested in backless booster
seats. This is discussed in more detail later in the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Rear Seat Cushion Characteristics

The standard seat assembly's seat cushion is made up of a seat
cover and seat foam. In drafting the NPRM, the agency developed a new
seat foam that was representative of the current U.S. vehicle fleet
after finding that foams used in test programs overseas were not
representative of U.S. vehicles. We sought to propose a foam that was
representative of foams used in vehicle seats, as measured in terms of
thickness, stiffness, and density. We also sought a foam that would not
``bottom out'' (fully compress) on to the rigid backing during the
demanding conditions of a compliance test. We proposed to specify
properties of a foam manufactured by The Woodbridge Group
(Woodbridge),\61\ which we referred to as the ``NHTSA-Woodbridge seat
cushion.'' The NPRM described the proposed foam by its thickness,
indentation force-deflection (IFD) test results, compression-force
deflection (CFD) test results, and density.^{62 63}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ The Woodbridge Group is a supplier of automotive seat foam,
http://www.woodbridgegroup.com.
\62\ The IFD test measures the force required for 25 percent, 50
percent, and 65 percent deflection of the entire product sample. The
CFD test measures the force required to compress a sample of the
foam (50 mm (1.96 inch) by 50 mm and 25 mm (0.98 inch) thickness) by
50 percent.
\63\ 85 FR at 69397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Thickness--Seat Back Cushion
For the seat back cushion, NHTSA proposed to use the NHTSA-
Woodbridge seat cushion foam with a 50.8 mm (2 inch) thickness. A 50.8
mm (2 inch) thickness is representative of seat back cushions in the
fleet. The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed that the overall seat back
cushion thickness for outboard and center seating positions was 76 mm
(3 inches) with a standard deviation of 29 mm (1.14 inches), measured
at the centerline of the seating position. The seat back cushion
thickness of 50.8 mm (2 inches) is within 1 standard deviation of the
average seat back cushion thickness in the vehicle fleet.
Another consideration we had for the proposal was that, while NHTSA
does not believe that the seat back cushion significantly affects a
CRS's dynamic performance in the frontal sled test, a seat back cushion
on the thicker side could be a potential source of variability when
testing CRSs with top tethers. When the tether is tightened, the back
cushion can be compressed to varying degrees. Data does not indicate
that differences in compression necessarily affect CRS performance, but
NHTSA explained that a 50.8 mm (2 inch) thick foam would reduce such
differences and thus facilitate a more repeatable installation. The
agency noted also that specifying a 50.8 mm (2 inch) thickness
streamlines the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test. Foam manufacturers
readily produce foams in 101.6 mm (4 inch) sections. A 101.6 mm (4
inch) thick foam slab can be easily cut into two 50.8 mm (2 inch)
pieces to be used for the seat back.
No commenter opposed adopting the proposal on the seat back cushion
thickness. This final rule adopts the proposal for the reasons in the
NPRM.
2. Thickness--Seat Bottom Cushion
NHTSA proposed a thickness of 101.6 mm (4 inches) for the bottom
seat cushion foam. A 101.6 mm (4 inch) thickness would be
representative of the seat cushions in real world vehicles. The Vehicle
Rear Seat Study found an average seat pan cushion thickness for both
outboard and center seating positions of 90 mm (3.5 inches) with a
standard deviation of 40 mm (1.5 inches), measured at the centerline of
the seating position.\64\ A 101.6 mm (4 inch) seat cushion foam
thickness for the seat pan also has the advantage of simplifying
procurement of the foam since foam standard specifications are
typically provided by the manufacturer in 101.6 mm (4 inches) samples,
as specified in test method B1 of ASTM D3574, ``Standard Test Methods
for Flexible Cellular Materials--Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane
Foams.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ The current FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly seat pan
cushion has a thickness of 152.4 mm (6 inch).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
After the agency submitted the NPRM to the Federal Register in
September 2020 and placed a copy on NHTSA's website, JPMA contacted
NHTSA via email on October 15, 2020 to ask about the foam.\65\ JPMA
focused on a technical

[[Page 84525]]

report \66\ describing the use of adhesives to produce a foam of the
requisite size for the proposed seat cushion. JPMA stated it preferred
not using adhesives and asked NHTSA about an approach where JPMA would
invest in a mold to produce a foam with the desired dimensions without
adhesive use. JPMA asked if one-piece foams would be acceptable and
whether the foam should have skin or not. NHTSA responded by stating
that the proposed specifications did not have provisions for or against
gluing or about skins. NHTSA noted that the agency had used adhesives
and that the skin of the foam did not affect the performance in our
testing.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ The ex parte communication was documented here: Docket No.
NHTSA-2020-0093-0050, at https://regulations.gov/.
\66\ Wietholter, K., Louden, A., & Echemendia, C. (2016,
September). Development of a representative seat assembly for FMVSS
No. 213. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0005. (p. 18)
\67\ The reference was to Wietholter, K., Louden, A., Sullivan,
L., ``Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 Test Bench,''
June 2016, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2013-0055-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPMA commented that they were planning to initiate a test project
to evaluate the foam at different laboratories and that JPMA would
share their results when ready. On December 15, 2021, JPMA met
virtually with NHTSA to present its research findings.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ The ex parte communication was documented here: Docket No.
NHTSA-2020-0093-0050 at https://regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the meeting, JPMA urged NHTSA to reduce the tolerance provided
for the thickness of the foam. JPMA said it observed that the specified
foam thickness and density tolerances allow for inconsistent test
results separately and more so if the thickness and density variation
within the tolerance are combined.\69\ JPMA stated that the
inconsistencies in test results would be higher when the combined
effect of the tolerances of foam thickness and density are considered.
In its comments to the NPRM, Graco had also expressed concerns
regarding the effect of foam thickness tolerance on results. Graco
stated that the seat pan cushion is nominally 102 millimeters (mm)
(4.00 inches) thick with a tolerance of 12.7 mm (0.50 inches); and the seat back cushion is nominally 51 mm (2.00
inches) thick with a tolerance of 6.4 mm (0.25
inches). Graco argued that the current foam pieces have a tolerance on
their thicknesses of 1/8 inches (3.2 mm). Graco
recommended that the tolerance be reduced to the minimum amount
feasible to better ensure repeatable and reproducible test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ A tolerance limit is a measure used to ensure the
uniformity of an item. Any item that falls outside of the specified
tolerance limit is deemed outside of the specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In JPMA's ex parte meeting with NHTSA on December 15, 2021, JPMA
presented its research findings on the effect of foam thickness. JPMA
procured seat foams with three thicknesses spanning the proposed
tolerance range \70\ and tested in four configurations. The four
configurations included the CRABI-12MO, HIII-3YO, HIII-6YO, and HIII-
10YO dummies in rear-facing, forward-facing and belt positioning CRSs.
It presented pictures of pre-test positioning of the dummies in the CRS
to show how the foam thicknesses affected the positioning of the
dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Thickness of three seat foam samples were 112.31mm, 102.01
mm and 93.19 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPMA then presented data on how the foam thicknesses affected the
injury measures in the different tests. Results were mixed as the foam
thickness variability contribution ranged from 3.1 percent to 87.5
percent depending on the CRS/dummy configuration and injury measure.
Overall, in tests with the CRABI-12MO dummy in a CRS used rear-facing
(3.1 to 28.6 percent) and the HIII-6YO in a forward-facing CRS (9.2 to
24.7 percent), the foam thickness variation had the least effect on
injury measures, while in tests with the HIII-3-year-old in a forward-
facing CRS, the foam thickness variation had the most effect on injury
measures (30 to 87.5 percent). JPMA concluded that the variation in
foam thickness resulted in greater than 10 percent variation in 15 out
of the 17 dummy response measures. JPMA also suggested adding a
flatness specification to reduce variation in foam surface profile.
Agency Response
NHTSA is reducing the seat foam cushion thickness tolerance from 4
0.5 inches to 4 0.25 inches. NHTSA reviewed
JPMA's data presented at the virtual meeting. JPMA claimed that the
results of testing with the wide range of thicknesses (3.5 in., 4 in.
and 4.5 in.) resulted in foam thickness variability contribution from
3.1 percent to 87.5 percent depending on the CRS/dummy configuration
and injury measure. JPMA presented data of its testing and calculated
the coefficient of variation (CV) values when taking all tests of the
same CRS tested at the different foam thicknesses ranging 3.5 to 4.5
inches. The approximate calculations showed CV values under 10 percent
which is still within the variability expected of the testing.
Therefore, even if the foam contributed to variability to some extent,
the variability is still within a reasonable range. However, NHTSA
believes it is feasible to procure foams with a smaller tolerance
without any additional burden and agrees that 0.5-inch tolerance in a
4-inch foam might be unnecessarily wide. Therefore, this final rule
specifies a 0.25-inch thickness tolerance for the seat foam bottom
cushion.
With regard to a requested flatness specification, we understand
this request as seeking a specification that will ensure the foam slab
has to have the same ``thickness'' throughout the slab. We did not
adopt a flatness specification as we have reduced the tolerance for the
foam slab thickness. With the reduced tolerance, even if variations are
present, they will be small and inconsequential.
3. Foam Stiffness
NHTSA proposed specifications for the stiffness of the bottom seat
cushion after comparing the stiffness of rear seat cushions in the
fleet to that of the seat cushions used in various test programs,
including FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA first measured the quasi-static
stiffness (force-deflection) of the seat cushions in rear seats of 13
passenger vehicles (Model Years 2003-2008).\71\ Next, since CRSs are
tested on the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly in a dynamic sled
test, NHTSA also evaluated the dynamic stiffness of the various seat
cushions. NHTSA believed that the stiffness of the NHTSA-Woodbridge
seat cushion satisfactorily represents the average seat cushion
stiffness found in the vehicle fleet and did not bottom out in the
severe impact tests we conducted (35 g at 56.3 kilometers per hour (km/
h) or 35 mph using heavy test dummies restrained in heavy child
restraints).\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ NPRM, 85 FR at 69395. Wietholter, K., Louden, A., and
Sullivan, L. ``Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 Test
Bench,'' June 2016 available in the docket for the NPRM.
\72\ NPRM, 85 FR at 69398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
In its comments to the NPRM, Graco presented its assessment of the
potential effects of Indention Force-Deflection (IFD) \73\ values close
to both ends of the tolerance zone. For one of Graco's seats (Seat H
\74\), the IFD was measured and recorded before each dynamic test.
Graco's data showed that increasing the IFD strongly correlated to
increased chest resultant accelerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Indentation Force Deflection (IFD) tests measure firmness
of flexible polyurethane foam cushions. High IFD test results imply
increased stiffness.
\74\ For details of Graco's data see comments at Docket No.
NHTSA-2020-0093-0035 attachment titled ``Graco comment NHTSA 2020
0093 Att A.''

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

[[Page 84526]]

Graco explained that IFD values can be affected by foam density and
overall thickness and, potentially, by temperature and humidity
conditions during storage. Graco recommended that, in addition to
tightening the tolerance on the thickness, NHTSA should reduce the
permitted tolerance range of new foam IFD and provide guidance on the
acceptable ranges of temperature and humidity for proper foam storage.
Graco noted that Appendix C \75\ of NHTSA's Research Test Procedure
describes the practice that was followed by NHTSA's Vehicle Research
and Test Center (VRTC) in testing that NHTSA conducted in developing
the NPRM, but that this information was not in the NPRM or addressed in
the current NHTSA's Compliance Test Procedure (TP-213-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ NHTSA's ``Research Test Procedure'' for the Proposed FMVSS
No. 213 Frontal Impact Test can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2020-
0093-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
NHTSA would like to begin by explaining the difference between the
agency's ``Research Test Procedure'' and NHTSA's Compliance Test
Procedure. The ``Research Test Procedure'' is the procedure that
NHTSA's VRTC developed and used during the development of this
rulemaking. This Research Test Procedure is generally aligned with
NHTSA's proposal for FMVSS No. 213 and has been used by NHTSA in
various ways to inform the agency's decision-making developing the
proposal. This Research Test Procedure offers details for interested
readers on how NHTSA conducted the tests (e.g., which camera placements
were used, how excursions were measured, CRS targeting for dynamic
measurements, foam storage and testing protocols, etc.). NHTSA's
``Compliance Test Procedures'' describe procedures NHTSA uses for
compliance testing and are administered by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance (OVSC) as guidance.\76\ The Compliance Test
Procedures are consistent with FMVSS No. 213 as set forth in the Code
of Federal Regulations, and is used as a contractual document between
OVSC and the test lab contractor to describe the procedures that the
contractor is to use to conduct an OVSC compliance test identified in
the Test Procedure. The procedure in the Compliance Test Procedure
falls within the parameters described in the test procedure set forth
in the corresponding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. NHTSA
considers the lessons learned from the agency's research when writing
the Compliance Test Procedures, but the Compliance Test Procedures
could differ from the research procedures to address agency needs and
interests that arise during administration of NHTSA's compliance test
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ The Compliance Test Procedures for all of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards can be found here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/test-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Research Test Procedure NHTSA used for developing the updated
FMVSS No. 213 sled, including the foam, was published along with the
NPRM.\77\ The Research Test Procedure (and accompanying test reports)
shed light on NHTSA's decision-making for the proposal, but do not
serve as regulation. NHTSA is developing the Compliance Test Procedure
and will consider what was learned about IFD testing and foam storage
during the research work when drafting the Compliance Test Procedure
administered by OVSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ NHTSA Research Procedure for the Proposed FMVSS No. 213
Frontal Impact Test can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule adopts the proposed stiffness characteristics for
the seat cushion for the reasons in the NPRM. The stiffness of the
NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion is satisfactorily representative of the
average seat cushion stiffness found in the vehicle fleet.
In response to Graco's suggestion to narrow the IFD specifications,
we have not found a need to do so. While there may be some response
changes to the chest acceleration (or other values) that depend on the
IFD values, the changes Graco presented also showed good repeatability
with a CV of 7 for chest accelerations on Seat H and under 10 percent
CV for Graco's other tested seats. The variations in performance
measures caused by the proposed range of IFD values were still within
acceptable variability levels, and, therefore, will be adopted in this
final rule.
JPMA asked why the tolerances of the IFD Procurement Specifications
were different than the Certification Specifications.
In response, NHTSA believes the following background is helpful.
The proposed drawings in the NPRM indicated Procurement and
Certification specifications for the seat pan and seat back foams. The
specifications serve different purposes. Procurement specifications are
verified by the foam manufacturer or distributor when the foam is sold.
Certification specifications are verified prior to sled testing by the
laboratory performing the test. The procurement specification tests
measure the density and the compression force deflection (CFD) of a
foam and identify the foams that are suitable for FMVSS No. 213
testing. They are destructive tests (a specimen piece of the produced
foam is cut off to perform the tests) and, therefore, cannot be
repeated multiple times before dynamic sled testing for FMVSS No. 213.
The indentation force deflection (IFD) tests are not destructive tests,
and at procurement, the foam manufacturer or distributor can perform
IFD tests to also identify the foam characteristics. Once the foam has
been procured, the Certification specifications, which only indicate
IFD characteristics, can be used to certify and ensure that the foam
has the required IFD characteristics prior to sled testing. Because IFD
characteristics are highly susceptible to the environment they are in,
a procured foam that has been exposed to different temperatures and
humidity levels might have different IFD characteristics than those
used for procurement. The foam certification (IFD) tests, conducted
prior to testing, ensure that the foams are within the specified IFD
ranges. The final drawing package incorporated by reference by this
final rule also includes the Procurement and Certification
specifications.
NHTSA established procurement specifications that differed from
certification specifications for the same foam for the following
reasons. First, NHTSA recognized that some foam suppliers use an
industry standard test protocol, including specified sample sizes, when
publishing foam specifications. Because these sample sizes are not the
same size as what NHTSA will use for compliance testing, these data
used to procure foam will not necessarily match the data on the actual
foam samples used in NHTSA's compliance testing. Thus, while the
procurement data are useful to identify potential foam that could be
used in compliance tests, the agency made the specifications provided
for procurement ``for reference'' as a guideline. The specifications
that are binding for the purposes of compliance tests are those that
meet the certification specifications. Those certification
specifications are included in the table titled ``Test Certification
Specifications for 4 [inch] and 2 [inch] Foams'' in drawings numbers
3021-233 and 3021-248 of the drawing package referenced in the updated
standard by this final rule.
Second, given the variation in foam characteristics due to
temperature and humidity changes, procurement specifications with
tighter tolerances make it easier for NHTSA's OVSC to have suitable
foams available for testing.

[[Page 84527]]

A larger tolerance for testing with the purchased foam is desired so
that more of the purchased foam is within specifications at the time of
testing. The purchased foams will be exposed to different temperatures
and humidity levels throughout their useful life, and, as a result,
their IFD characteristics will vary throughout time. Having a wider IFD
specification range is beneficial to ensure foams can be reasonably
certified for dynamic testing. Foams within the certification IFD
specification ranges produced FMVSS No. 213 repeatable and reproducible
dynamic test results.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ Documented in technical report docketed in NHTSA-2020-0093-
0029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IFD Test Procedure Consistency
In the December 2021 meeting with JPMA, JPMA recommended against
creating a new unique procedure in Draft TP-213 ``Laboratory Test
Procedure for FMVSS 213 Child Restraint Systems'' that deviates from
ASTM D3574 and Woodbridge test methods. JPMA also recommended
specifying the test method for certifying the foam blocks as either the
latest version of ASTM D3574 (not the 2011 version) or a method
matching how Woodbridge currently tests foam for certification at time
of procurement.
Agency Response
JPMA suggests following Woodbridge specific IFD testing or ASTM
D3574 without deviation. With regard to the Woodbridge-specific IFD, we
cannot agree with the suggestion. NHTSA would not be able to follow the
Woodbridge IFD testing methodology in all instances because Woodbridge
is not the only source of foam. Each supplier will likely have
different scientifically sound methods to evaluate IFD.
With regard to ASTM D3574, NHTSA agrees that referencing the ASTM
D3574 standard in the drawing package where the foam specifications are
indicated could improve consistency in foam testing. This final rule
therefore incorporates by reference ASTM D3574 in the drawing package.
However, following the ASTM D3574 standard without deviation is not
possible. The foam sample specified in the ASTM D3574 (15 X 15 inches)
differs from the foam sample size available from the seat cushion (19 X
28 inches) and seat back (22 X 28 inches). ASTM D3574 specifies sample
thickness to be 4 inches whereas the seat back cushion of the updated
standard seat assembly is only 2 inches thick. Also, the ASTM D3574
standard measures IFD values at 25% and 65%, while FMVSS No. 213 foam
certification measures IFD of 50% (25% and 65% are measured only for
reference). The drawing package notes where the procedure differs from
the ASTM standard. This is discussed in detail below in the paragraph
entitled, ``Comment on ASTM Reference.''
Response to Comment on Density
JPMA and Graco's reference to foam density is unclear. JPMA and
Graco referred to foam density and thickness as sources of IFD
variation but all of JPMA's data are specific to the variation in
sample thickness. We did not see any data on density variation. We
assume JPMA's comment is trying to tie density to IFD, (i.e., a foam
that is significantly less dense (softer) than the one we proposed
might not yield the IFD values we proposed) as it is often thought that
higher density foams are stiffer than lower density ones.\79\ In
response to that point, we do not believe a change to the density
specification is needed, as our response to the comment on the IFD
addresses the density aspect. As explained above, even with foam sample
IFD differences, the dummy responses still produced results that were
within 10 percent CV, indicating good repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ NHTSA recognizes that this is not always true as there is
no direct correlation between density and stiffness (firmness).
There can be low density foams with high stiffness. Link: https://www.pfa.org/foam-performance/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Miscellaneous Issues
Comment on Industry-Produced Molds
JPMA suggested there should be a long-term effort, that NHTSA
should support, whereby the CRS industry builds new molds for the
standard seat assembly bottom and back foam blocks so the thickness,
flatness and dimensions of the foam blocks can be controlled within
tight specifications and tolerances. As it described this suggestion,
JPMA believed that these changes would result in (1) consistent block
thickness which will reduce dynamic test score variations, as well as a
consistent block surface finish and surface profile; (2) alignment on
how vehicle manufacturers mold the foam for vehicle seating surfaces;
(3) all laboratories conducting FMVSS No. 213 testing on the updated
standard seat assembly with the same foam blocks; (4) lower per piece
cost as cutting and gluing operations would be eliminated; and (5) foam
blocks produced with CRS Industry funded molds that would be accessible
to everyone.
Agency Response
We are encouraged that the industry has thought of an approach
where it could possibly develop a foam mold to procure foam more easily
and consistently for FMVSS No. 213 testing purposes. However, the
agency is cautious about an FMVSS No. 213 specification that may result
in a single source for a component used in compliance testing, such as
the standard seat assembly foam. NHTSA seeks for the foam to be
available from multiple merchants. Also, the agency believes this
approach of an industry-developed mold is an interesting one but there
are factors the agency must thoroughly consider. For example, we
believe the molds would have to be made available to everyone with no
restrictions on use and would have to be used in a process anyone could
use. NHTSA is also mindful that a mold would only be useful for a
limited time, as the standard seat assembly is subject to updates.
Comment on Foam Procurement
Dorel comments that its conversations with Woodbridge indicated
there may be challenges to meeting the foam specifications in the NPRM.
Dorel urges NHTSA to confirm that the specifications are practicable
and capable of being met by suppliers to avoid market disruption for
inability to certify compliance.
In response, NHTSA does not know of any challenges Woodbridge has
in meeting the specifications since they developed the specifications
and have been successfully supplying the foam for several years. NHTSA
also did market research and identified other sources from which the
foam could be procured.\80\ NHTSA procured these non-Woodbridge foams
to confirm that the foam is not a single sourced item and that these
foams have the same performance as the Woodbridge foam.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ Foam Feasibility Study Final Report--June 2018. Docket No.
NHTSA-2020-0093-0012 at https://regulations.gov/.
\81\ Louden, A.E., Wetli, A.E. (2020 December). Evaluation of
Foam Specifications for Use on the Proposed FMVSS No. 213 Test
Bench. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0029, at https://regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment on ASTM Reference
Dorel states that there was a difference between the NPRM, and a
2015 NHTSA memorandum related to an ASTM reference. Dorel states that
the NPRM \82\ references the 2003 update to the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3574-03 ``Standard Test Methods for
Flexible Cellular Materials--Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams''
(ASTM D3574-03). The commenter notes the 2015 memo indicates the 2011
revision to that

[[Page 84528]]

standard, ASTM D3574-11, is used to create the compression force
deflection (CFD) specifications. Dorel asks NHTSA to clarify which
version of the test standard it will reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ Preamble section III.c.5.i (85 FR 69395).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response, while the foam specifications were developed using, in
general, the test methods of ASTM D3574-11, some aspects were adjusted.
In response to the comment, NHTSA has added a note on the drawing
package explaining that the full (seat pan and seat back) foam sample
size and 50 percent indentation is tested in lieu of the ASTM D3574-11
requirement(s): ``Foam IFDs are measured on the full-size sample, using
the test methodology and apparatus described in ASTM Standard D3574-11
at 50% indentation. 25% and 65% are collected for reference only.'' For
instance, the required samples sizes for ASTM D3574 testing are to be
15 x 15 x 4 inches while the size of the seat pan foam is 19 x 28 x 4
inches and the seat back foam is 22 x 28 x 2 inches. NHTSA also makes
CFD measurements at 25 percent (for reference only), 50 percent and 65
percent (for reference only), whereas the ASTM D3574 standard only
makes CFD measurements at 25 percent and 65 percent. Therefore, NHTSA's
testing followed the ASTM D3574 test procedures generally but adjusted
them for practical reasons.
The drawing package has been updated to reference the ASTM D3574-11
but with explanations of the differences with NHTSA testing, including
those relating to sample size and the additional 50 percent CFD
measurement. The foam drawings 3021-233 and 3021-248 lists values for
reference; the foam used in a specific test does not need to meet the
25 percent and 65 percent IFD values listed in these tables for the
test to be valid. During its research program, NHTSA concluded that
these values do not impact the results of the dynamic test but were
helpful as reference points to monitor the condition of the foam. The
25 percent and 65 percent IFD values therefore were included in the
drawing package for reference.

c. Means for Attaching a CRS to the Standard Seat Assembly

1. Seat Belts
FMVSS No. 213 currently states that CRSs are attached to the
standard seat assembly with a Type 1 and not a Type 2 belt.\83\ To
ensure continued effective CRS performance in today's vehicles, NHTSA
proposed to require all CRSs to meet the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the seat assembly with a Type 2 \84\
(lap/shoulder belt). The NPRM proposed to amend the CRS frontal
collision test by, among other things, specifying that NHTSA would use
the Type 2 belt to attach child restraints to the seat assembly in a
test. With the prevalence of Type 2 belts in the rear seats of vehicles
sold today, the NPRM proposed to delete, as obsolete, the current
provisions to use the Type 1 belt. NHTSA proposed the change with the
view that testing CRSs with the type of seat belt caregivers are likely
to use better ensures that the test is representative of real-world
conditions. Also, the agency believed the change to a Type 2 belt would
be inconsequential as test data do not indicate any significant
difference in performance in current child restraint designs when
installed using a Type 1 versus a Type 2 belt.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2. See also NHTSA, Test Procedures, TP-
213-10, February 16, 2014. Note that belt-positioning (booster)
seats are currently tested with a Type 2 belt.
\84\ The Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies in the current
and updated standard seat assemblies simulate these seat belt types
in vehicles, by having anchorage locations representative of
vehicles, and webbing that conforms with FMVSS No. 209. The
configuration and webbing of the seat belt assemblies and location
on FMVSS No. 213's standard seat assembly reproduce relevant aspects
of the vehicle environment in a manner that is controlled for
compliance testing purposes. These seat belt types in the standard
seat assembly do not meet all FMVSS No. 209 provisions as regards
having retractor buckles, other fasteners, or hardware designed for
installing such seat belt assembly, but those differences are minor
and generally do not affect CRS performance. However, the belt
retractor on the standard seat assembly is fixed, which differs from
retractors on real-world vehicles that allow some spooling-out of
webbing before locking in a crash-imminent situation. As discussed
in sections below, NHTSA has research underway to develop a
retractor that better replicates real-world retractors, that could
provide a more thorough assessment of child restraint system
performance in the real world. NHTSA plans to develop the retractor
and eventually propose the retractor in a future rulemaking.
\85\ See results of test numbers 8917, 8922, 8919, 8923, 8929,
and 8931 in Table 11 and test numbers 8917, 8922, 8919, and 8923 in
Table 12 of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All commenters support the proposal to use Type 2 belts to anchor
child restraints to the standard seat assembly. The National Safety
Council, Consumer Reports, Volvo, and Salem-Keizer Public Schools
support testing of CRSs with the use of Type 2 belts as they are more
representative of the vehicle fleet. However, while supporting the use
of Type 2 belts, SBS and SRN also strongly oppose removing the Type 1
belt testing specification in FMVSS No. 213. SBS and SRN urge NHTSA to
retain the Type 1 belt test, at least for a while longer, to meet the
needs of persons who may own vehicles that do not have Type 2 belts in
rear seats.
After reviewing the comments, we have decided to adopt the proposed
provisions about including Type 2 belts on the updated seat assembly
and testing child seats while anchored with the Type 2 belts. Also, as
discussed in detail in a section below, this final rule retains the
Type 1 belt test until September 1, 2029. Thus, this final rule
includes specifications for Type 1 and Type 2 belts on the new standard
seat assembly.
Type 1 Belt Specifications
The specifications for the Type 1 (2-point) belt anchorages are the
same as the Type 1 belt anchorages of the Type 2 (3-point) seat belts.
Although the Vehicle Rear Seat Study \86\ shows that center vehicle
seat Type 1 seat belt anchorages (where Type 1 seat belts are
available), are closer together than in outboard vehicle seats,
narrower spacing can cause potential interference with wide CRSs. This
interference could affect the setup of the CRS on the standard seat
assembly. While the average spacing between the anchorages in a rear
center seating position in the vehicle fleet is 355 mm, the spacing
ranged between 232 mm to 455 mm. The lap belt anchorages of the Type 2
seat belt anchorages in the standard seat assembly have a spacing of
450 mm. While this spacing is greater than the average spacing of the
lap belt anchorages of rear center seats in the vehicle fleet, it is
still within the range found in the vehicle fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ NHTSA-2020-0093-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type 2 Belt Specifications
The agency has adopted specifications for the Type 2 belt as
proposed in the NPRM. The agency determined the location of the
anchorages based on requirements of FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt
anchorages,'' and the data from the Vehicle Rear Seat Study. We also
adjusted the anchorage placement to ensure a compliance test could be
conducted without interference between the seat belt and the vehicle
seat assembly, or the child restraint and a seat belt anchorage. Five
commenters (the National Safety Council, Salem-Keizer schools, Volvo,
Safe Ride News and Consumer Reports) commented in support of the
proposal to incorporate Type 2 belts into FMVSS No. 213's protocols. No
commenter opposes the inclusion of Type 2 belts into FMVSS No. 213.
NHTSA will incorporate a Type 2 belt into FMVSS No. 213 and the
standard seat assembly as proposed.

[[Page 84529]]

Clarifying Belt Webbing Specifications
Some CRS manufacturers took the opportunity to comment on the
webbing used for the standard seat assembly's seat belts. Currently,
S6.1.1.(c) specifies that the webbing must comply with FMVSS No. 209
and have a width of not more than 2 inches.\87\ Graco notes that the
current Compliance Test Procedure, TP-213-10, specifies webbing with 5
panels but that the 5-panel webbing is not specified in FMVSS No. 213,
as Graco believes it should be. The commenter also notes the Research
Test Procedure that was used to develop the 2020 NPRM used webbing with
7 panels. JPMA and Britax note that, as 5-panel webbing is no longer
available, FMVSS No. 213 should reflect the mechanical properties of
the webbing. Graco believes that FMVSS No. 209 permits significant
variation in elongation, which can affect FMVSS No. 213 test outcomes.
Graco recommends that FMVSS No. 213 should provide a narrow range for
the elongation under load to ensure test consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies,'' establishes
elongation requirements (S4.2(c) when the webbing is subjected to a
load of 11,120 Newtons (N). The elongation requirements vary
depending on the different assembly types. In general, the webbing
must not extend to more than the following elongation when subjected
to the specified forces in accordance with the procedure specified
in FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(c): Type 1 seat belt assembly--20 percent at
11,120 [Newtons (N)]; Type 2 seat belt assembly 30 percent at 11,120
N for webbing in pelvic restraint and 40 percent at 11,120 N for
webbing in upper torso restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
FMVSS No. 213 does not specify the number of panels for the
standard seat assembly's seat belt webbing, and we do not believe it is
necessary to do so. NHTSA used 7-panel webbing that was certified to
applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 209 throughout the development of
the proposed updates to FMVSS No. 213, as it is now more commonly used
in the field. It is true that the current OVSC Compliance Test
Procedure for FMVSS No. 213, TP-213-10, specifies 5-panel webbing and
that the Research Test Procedure specifies a 7-panel webbing. However,
neither contradicts the standard because both types of webbing were
certified to applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 209. Furthermore, as
we learned from reaching out to a seat belt supplier/manufacturer and
from tests we conducted (described below), the number of panels does
not affect the strength or elongation of the webbing. The number of
panels is simply a matter of manufacturer preference.
NHTSA conducted some elongation tests on seat belt webbing having
different number of panels and different specifications for percent
elongation.

Table 1--Elongation Testing of 7 Seat Belt Webbing Models
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Webbing Elongation % Break load (N) displacement (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv 6% 3-Panel......................... 6.3 27,842.6..................... 184.7
Autoliv 6% 3-Panel......................... 6.4 27,753.5..................... 180.4
Autoliv 6% 3-Panel......................... 6.3 27,746.6..................... 187.8
Autoliv 10% 5-Panel........................ 9.7 28,762.0..................... 238.0
Autoliv 10% 5-Panel........................ 9.6 28,828.0..................... 237.5
Autoliv 10% 5-Panel........................ 9.5 29,103.8..................... 246.2
Autoliv 15% 6-Panel........................ 12.4 STROKE MAXED OUT............. 260.0
Autoliv 15% 6-Panel........................ 12.5 STROKE MAXED OUT............. 260.0
Autoliv 15% 6-Panel........................ 12.8 STROKE MAXED OUT............. 260.0
MGA 5-Panel................................ 8.4 26,827.4..................... 201.3
MGA 5-Panel................................ 8.5 27,587.1..................... 212.5
MGA 5-Panel................................ 6.7 26,600.2..................... 200.5
CALSPAN Compliance 5-Panel................. 6.8 32,511.1..................... 207.0
CALSPAN Compliance 5-Panel................. 6.5 33,045.7..................... 200.9
CALSPAN Compliance 5-Panel................. 6.5 33,630.9..................... 208.9
CALSPAN R&R 7-Panel........................ 8.2 32,187.7..................... 224.0
CALSPAN R&R 7-Panel........................ 8.0 32,410.2..................... 223.1
CALSPAN R&R 7-Panel........................ 8.2 32,372.3..................... 220.3
VRTC R&R 7-Panel........................... 7.2 29,244.8..................... 216.0
VRTC R&R 7-Panel........................... 7.3 28,615.1..................... 217.6
VRTC R&R 7-Panel........................... 7.4 29,322.2..................... 222.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test data in Table 1 show that webbing can be manufactured to
different percent elongation specifications independent of the number
of panels, and therefore, specifying the number of panels would be
meaningless. Because the number of panels is immaterial, NHTSA may
change TP-213 to remove any specification of a panel number. This
addresses the comments by JPMA, Graco and Britax regarding the
discrepancy of the number of panels in the webbing and the difficulty
purchasing the 5-panel webbing. What matters most about the webbing in
this context is the elongation characteristics, not the number of
panels.
Graco states that the proposed regulatory text in the NPRM only
requires that the webbing meet FMVSS No. 209 requirements without
defining the desired mechanical properties. NHTSA disagrees that the
regulatory text does not specify the webbing's mechanical properties,
as FMVSS No. 209 S4.2, referenced in FMVSS No. 213, specifies the
mechanical properties of the webbing.
Graco recommends narrowing the elongation limits and we agree to
consider this for the OVSC Compliance Test Procedure (TP-213). NHTSA
recognizes that the elongation limits in FMVSS No. 209 range widely, 20
percent, 30 percent and 40 percent depending on type of seat belt
assembly. While Graco suggests FMVSS No. 213 should specify a narrow
range for elongation under load, it did not provide data demonstrating
how different elongation specifications within FMVSS No. 209 affect
FMVSS No. 213 test outcomes. Nonetheless, while FMVSS No. 209 contains
wide elongation ranges, the vehicle manufacturers usually use ranges of
6-15 percent. Webbing of lower elongation

[[Page 84530]]

percentages would be difficult to produce and procure, and could be too
stiff causing potential injuries as it is slowing down the occupant
more abruptly. Elongation ranges over 15 percent could create excessive
excursion during a crash, which could result in an undesirable outcome
for the occupant (i.e., it will be more likely for the occupant to
contact vehicle structures, like the instrument panel or steering
wheel). The agency will consider incorporating in TP-213 a narrower
elongation range than is currently specified in the test procedure, to
reflect belt webbing in today's vehicles. The agency tentatively
concludes that a narrower elongation range would better represent the
real-world crash environment, as it would be a range commonly found in
vehicles.
Further, NHTSA notes that, in practice, the elongation values used
to develop this final rule were much narrower than that specified in
FMVSS No. 209. NHTSA did not collect the specific elongation
characteristics for the webbing used during FMVSS No. 213 development
testing. However, webbing that was recently procured by VRTC for
testing the updated standard seat assembly is consistent with what
vehicle manufacturers use (6-15 percent). So while the elongation
ranges in FMVSS No. 209 are wide, in practice webbing with much smaller
elongation ranges are used.
2. Child Restraint Anchorage System
The specifications for the child restraint anchorage system are the
same as those proposed in the NPRM. These include the locations for the
lower anchorages and for the top tether anchorage. There were no
comments opposing the proposed specifications. This final rule adopts
the proposal for the reasons provided in the NPRM.

d. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Test Results

After NHTSA developed the updated standard seat assembly, the
agency contracted with three different test labs to build the updated
standard seat assembly and evaluate the repeatability and
reproducibility of the FMVSS No. 213 sled test. NHTSA's repeatability
and reproducibility evaluation of the updated standard seat assembly is
discussed in more detail in the agency's technical report titled,
``FMVSS No. 213 Frontal Repeatability and Reproducibility Evaluation,''
(August 2023). A copy of the report is found in the docket for this
final rule. The three test labs were Calspan, the Medical College of
Wisconsin (MCW) and the Transportation Research Center (TRC).
Calspan and MCW fabricated an updated standard seat assembly based
on a drawing package provided by NHTSA. VRTC provided TRC with an up-
to-date standard seat assembly to use as a baseline in the assessment.
After building an updated standard seat assembly, Calspan and MCW
provided key measurements of their updated standard seat assemblies for
NHTSA to compare to the drawing package. The labs also provided data of
foam certifications \88\ showing the repeatability and reproducibility
of the new foam cushion IFD test procedure described in Appendix C of
the 2020 ``Evaluation of Foam Specifications for Use on the Proposed of
the FMVSS No. 213 Test Bench''.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ Data is documented in the ``FMVSS No. 213 Frontal
Repeatability and Reproducibility Evaluation'' technical Report.
\89\ Louden, A.E., Wetli, A.E. (2020 December). Evaluation of
Foam Specifications for Use on the Proposed FMVSS No. 213 Test
Bench. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each lab also conducted sled testing to evaluate the repeatability
and reproducibility of the overall updated standard seat assembly and
the test procedure used in the assessment. Each lab conducted several
sets of repeat tests with the same child restraints systems, which
provided the data needed to evaluate the overall repeatability and
reproducibility of the updated standard seat assembly, test procedure,
and overall system-level sled test. When comparing within each lab and
across all three labs, most injury responses had a CV under 10
percent,\90\ indicating that the updated sled test and related
procedures are repeatable and reproducible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ Coefficient of Variation (CV) is a measure of the
dispersion of data points in a data series around the mean value. CV
is computed as a percentage of the mean and is computed for a data
series as the standard deviation ([sigma]) for the data series
divided by the mean ([mu]) of the data series times 100. CV =
([sigma]/[mu]) x 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Received
Graco states that it conducted a statistical analysis of data it
gathered during testing \91\ at two labs with a HIII-6YO dummy in seven
different models of belt-positioning seats and one model of a child
restraint installed with a Type 2 belt system. Graco states that the
test results show that the HIC36 scores have very high variation
between and within the two labs, to the degree that they would fall
into the ``needs improvement'' category. The CV for the other injury
criteria were mostly in the ``excellent'' range and a few chest
resultant scores in the ``good'' range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ Graco performed 348 dynamic tests using different CRS
models (18) and types (rear-facing, forward-facing and booster
seats) at two labs: Calspan (Buffalo, NY) and Graco (Atlanta, GA).
More details on the testing can be found at Graco's comment (Docket
No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0035 at https://www.regulations.gov/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco states it further assessed if the high CV results for HIC36
are a function of lab-to-lab variation by evaluating the HIC36 scores
from just the units tested at Calspan. The commenter states that half
of the eight CRSs have high variability (CV > 10 percent) and another
showed marginally acceptable variability (CV exactly 10 percent). The
commenter argues that its findings are supported by some of the
findings in Table 4 of a Calspan's R&R Report (sponsored by NHTSA).\92\
The table is titled, ``Reproducibility of the Graco Affix 6-year-old
with Type 2 belt restraint.'' Graco notes that the chest acceleration
results have a mean of 51.5 g at Calspan and a mean of 58.8 g at VRTC,
yet the Calspan R&R Report suggests--relying on a CV of 4.2 percent--
that this information supports a test process that is rated
``excellent'' for its repeatability and reproducibility across
laboratories. The commenter acknowledges that intra-laboratory testing
is consistent. ``However, when the data is taken as a whole the mean is
54.6 g [NHTSA notes that the correct value in the report is 55.1g] and
the standard deviation is 4.1 g, and the expected failure rate given
these data is approximately 10 percent of units tested, which suggests
an unacceptable process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ Table 4, Maltese, M.R., Horn, W. ``Repeatability and
Reproducibility of the Updated FMVSS No. 213 Frontal Standard Seat
Assembly''. October 2019. Report Number: 213R&R-CAL-19-018R1. Docket
No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0011 at https://www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco also referenced Table 5 of a NHTSA R&R report that shows a
difference in the mean values for head excursion between the two labs
of 23.7 mm, although the CV was determined to be 2.7 percent,
indicating excellent repeatability and reproducibility. The commenter
states, ``Again, this illustrates that lab-to-lab variation does exist
and can materially affect test outcomes.''
Graco states that, as a result of these tests and its review of the
NHTSA report, it is concerned that the representative proposed standard
seat assembly has not shown good repeatability and reproducibility in
its current state and that improvements must be made to ensure more
consistent test results. Graco suggests changes to improve the R&R of
the test bench and the test method. These changes are discussed in
other sections of this preamble.

[[Page 84531]]

Agency Response
NHTSA disagrees with Graco's view about the R&R of the sled. As
discussed above, NHTSA performed repeatability and reproducibility
tests at the three laboratories used (Calspan, MCW, and TRC) on a
variety of CRS models in different configurations using different size
dummies (see Table 2) to help NHTSA determine the R&R of the proposed
test equipment and test procedure. This section will discuss this
testing in more detail showing that the proposed equipment and test
procedure are R&R, as well as responding to some of the commenter's
concerns about R&R.
The standard seat assemblies in the three laboratories used for the
repeatability and reproducibility testing were in accordance with the
specifications of this final rule.\93\ The sled acceleration pulses
used in the three laboratories were within the specified corridor of
this final rule as shown in Figure 2. The three laboratories used
acceleration-based sleds (HYGE Sled or SERVO Sled). More details are
available in the tables found in Appendix A to the Preamble--
Reproducibility Test Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ Testing was done with the proposed standard seat assembly;
however, only minor changes were done to the drawings of the
standard seat assembly that would have no effect on the performance
of these tests.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.001

NHTSA calculated the CV for the applicable FMVSS No. 213 injury
criteria for the repeat tests to evaluate in-lab repeatability and for
all the tests at the three labs to evaluate reproducibility. Since a
new CRS is used for each test, the variability in test results for a
CRS model is due to the variability in the construction of the CRS, the
CRS design, test equipment, test conditions and test procedure.
The CV for the seat back angle measure in the tests of CRS used
rear-facing was less than 10 percent for repeatability and
reproducibility. The CV for head and knee excursions in tests of
forward-facing CRSs and belt-positioning seats were also less than 10
percent for repeatability and reproducibility. The CV for Chest
Acceleration repeatability and reproducibility was less than 10 percent
for all the CRS models tested in all three laboratories.
The CV for HIC36 repeatability was less than 10 percent in all but
one CRS configurations tested. The HIC36 CV for the Evenflo SureRide
(6YO-Forward-facing (FF) CRS) tests conducted at MCW was 10.3 percent.
The CV for HIC36 reproducibility in all models was less than 10 percent
except for the Harmony Defender 360 \94\ (CV = 16.6 percent) and the
Chicco Key Fit (CV = 12.1 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ Using the HIII-3-Year-Old in a forward-facing (FF) CRS.

Table 2--CV Percent Values for Repeatability and Reproducibility Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Test facility QTY HIC36 acceleration Seat back angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo Embrace 35--CRABI--Infant--LA Only
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
--------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.......................... n = 3............... 2.3 1.3 0.9
MCW.............................. n = 3............... 3.3 4.4 3.8
TRC.............................. n = 3............... 5.6 9.4 3.4

[[Page 84532]]

All.............................. n = 9............... 5.6 5.7 8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicco Key Fit--CRABI--Infant--LA Only
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
--------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.......................... n = 3............... 5.1 0.7 2.3
MCW.............................. n=1................. ................. ................. .................
TRC.............................. n = 1............... ................. ................. .................
All.............................. n = 5............... 12.1 1.1 6.7
SigmaL.............. 13.1 ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo Embrace 35--CRABI--Infant--SB3PT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
--------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.......................... n = 3............... 0.9 1.3 1.7
MCW.............................. n=3................. 3.8 2.7 2.0
ALL.............................. N = 6............... 7.6 5.6 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Scenera Next--HIII 3YO--RF \95\--LA Only
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
--------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.......................... n = 3............... 2.4 3.7 2.0
MCW.............................. n = 3............... 1.5 2.4 0.9
TRC.............................. n = 3............... 9.5 3.1 2.4
All.............................. n = 9............... 6.2 3.1 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graco MyRide 65--HIII 3YO--RF--Type 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
--------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.......................... n = 3............... 3.4 1.7 1.1
MCW.............................. n = 3............... 3.0 2.9 1.0
TRC.............................. n = 3............... 2.2 1.9 7.5
All.............................. n = 9............... 8.3 2.2 7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Test Facility QTY HIC36 acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Scenera Next--HIII 3YO--FF \95\--LATCH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... 3.6 3.4 0.6 1.7
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 8.3 1.3 1.8 0.3
TRC......................................... n = 3......................... 2.9 2.5 0.5 .................
All......................................... n = 9......................... 8.9 4.4 1.8 1.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Defender 360--HIII 3YO--FF--Type 2&T
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 1......................... ................. ................. ................. .................
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 3.1 2.6 1.0 0.5
TRC......................................... n = 2......................... ................. ................. ................. .................
All......................................... n = 6......................... 16.6 5.9 2.0 1.6
SigmaL........................ 9.8 ................. ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Marathon Clicktight--HIII 6YO--FF--LA Only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... 6.5 5.1 3.3 1.2
MCW......................................... n = 1......................... ................. ................. ................. .................
TRC......................................... n=1........................... ................. ................. ................. .................
All......................................... n = 5......................... 6.3 6.5 0.7 2.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo SureRide--HIII 6YO--FF--LATCH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 0......................... ................. ................. ................. .................

[[Page 84533]]

MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 10.3 3.4 3.5 0.4
SigmaL........................ 15.3 ................. ................. .................
TRC......................................... n = 3......................... 4.8 0.3 1.0 0.6
All......................................... n = 6......................... 9.1 2.9 2.7 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Nautilus 65--HIII 6YO--FF--Type 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... 3.5 1.3 1.7 0.7
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 4.9 5.2 0.7 0.7
TRC......................................... n = 3......................... 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.1
All......................................... n = 9......................... 8.8 3.5 2.0 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Frontier Clicktight--HIII 10YO--FF--Type 2&T
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 2......................... n/a ................. ................. .................
MCW......................................... n = 1......................... n/a ................. ................. .................
TRC......................................... n = 3......................... n/a 5.1 1.0 0.5
All......................................... n = 6......................... n/a 6.1 1.6 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Pronto HB--HIII 6YO--BPS--Type 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... 3.4 7.0 0.8 0.7
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 6.5 5.4 3.4 0.6
TRC......................................... n=3........................... 3.6 1.0 0.4 0.7
All......................................... n = 9......................... 7.4 9.5 3.7 1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Affix--HIII 6YO BPS--Type 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... 4.7 2.0 1.6 0.2
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 5.5 5.2 2.7 3.5
TRC......................................... n=3........................... 8.1 1.2 2.3
All......................................... n = 9......................... 8.9 3.5 2.6 2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Youth NB--HIII 6YO--BPS--Type 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... 3.4 1.4 1.1 1.8
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... 4.5 1.7 1.0 0.9
TRC......................................... n = 3......................... 9.4 2.7 2.3 0.9
All......................................... n = 9......................... 7.9 2.9 1.9 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo Big Kid LX HB--HIII 10YO--BPS--Type 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan..................................... n = 3......................... n/a 1.6 1.1 4.1
MCW......................................... n = 3......................... n/a 3.5 1.8 1.2
TRC......................................... n = 3......................... n/a 1.0 0.6 0.1
All......................................... n=9........................... n/a 3.4 3.5 3.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ RF means rear-facing.
\96\ FF means forward-facing.
\*\ HIC36 when using the HIII-10YO dummy is not an injury measure used in FMVSS No. 213.

The Harmony Defender 360 tested in the forward-facing with internal
harness CRS configuration, using the HIII-3YO dummy had good
repeatability values, but the CV exceeded 10 percent for HIC36
reproducibility. The Chicco Key Fit infant carrier tested in the rear-
facing with internal harness CRS configuration, using the CRABI-12MO
dummy had good repeatability values, but the CV exceeded 10 percent for
HIC36 reproducibility. The CV for HIC36 repeatability for the Evenflo
SureRide (forward-facing CRS with internal harness with HIII-6YO)
exceeded 10 percent in one laboratory (MCW). We note that the HIC36
values for these CRSs were under 500 which is less than 50 percent of
the performance limit (1000). Because CV is calculated by dividing the
standard deviation by the average values, the CV appears to be larger
for lower average values of HIC36 than for higher average HIC36
values.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ This is considered a limitation in the use of %CV.
Therefore, NHTSA also considers the average measures with respect to
the allowable performance measure when assessing repeatability and
reproducibility using %CV.

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

[[Page 84534]]

For each metric with a higher than 10 percent CV, we calculated the
substantiveness of the variation relative to the IARV or performance
limit. Sigma-to-Limit (SigmaL, [sigma]L) (see Equation 1) results above
2.0, would indicate at least two standard deviations between the
average response and the IARV or performance limit. Responses with a
Sigma-to-Limit greater than two identify ``good'' levels of variation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that are unlikely to cross the IARV or performance limit.

Sigma-to-Limit (SigmaL, [sigma]L) = ((Limit- x))/[sigma] Equation 1

The HIC36 CV percent for repeatability for the Evenflo SureRide
(6YO-forward-facing CRS) tests conducted at MCW was 10.3 percent with a
Sigma-to-limit value of 15.3. The CV for HIC36 reproducibility in the
Harmony Defender 360 \98\ was 16.6 percent with a sigma-to-limit value
of 9.8 and in the Chicco Key Fit was 12.1 with a sigma-to-limit value
of 13.1. This means that while these CRSs had a CV percent above 10, it
is unlikely that the observed variability would cause a CRS to cross
the IARV established in the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ Using the HIII-3-Year-Old in a forward-facing (FF) CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco commented that half of their eight CRSs having high in-lab
variability (CV greater than 10 percent) and the high HIC variability
values in tests conducted at different labs. Graco did not provide the
HIC values for those tests but we would expect that HIC values for
those tests were low (around or below 500) where, just like NHTSA's
tests with the Harmony Defender 360 and Evenflo SureRide, CV appears to
be larger for lower average values of HIC36 than for higher ones.
These results show the updated standard seat assembly design and
corresponding test procedures are repeatable and reproducible. The CV
analysis is a practical approach to evaluating R&R of the whole system
(test article, test equipment, test environment, and test procedure).
While we cannot extract the variability introduced by the different
sources of variability (for example variation in acceleration pulses,
test dummies, CRS build), results showed acceptable CV values (less
than 10 percent) or marginally above 10 percent.
In further response to Graco's concern that its tests had HIC
values exceeding 10 percent CV, it is important to note that assessment
of repeatability based on CV values is a methodology established to
assess the repeatability and reproducibility of anthropomorphic test
devices in qualification testing.\99\ Per this assessment, CV values of
dummy responses in the qualification tests of less than or equal to 10
percent are considered acceptable to excellent in repeatability and
reproducibility. Note, however, that these qualification tests
typically involve an impact by a tool to a specific dummy part (e.g.,
head, thorax, pelvis, right arm, left leg), and so the CV values only
evaluate the variability of a specific dummy response. In contrast, the
CV values of dummy responses in the frontal impact sled test includes
variability at a system level (whole body dummy responses in different
child restraint systems on a dynamic sled). Therefore, strict adherence
to the acceptable limit of CV used in the dummy qualification tests may
be setting the bar exceptionally high when evaluating system level
performance. Nevertheless, the reproducibility evaluation shows it is
acceptable in 13 of the 15 CRS configurations evaluated, as shown in
Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ Rhule, D., Rhule, H., & Donnelly, B. (2005). The process of
evaluation and documentation of crash test dummies for Part 572 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. 19th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, June
6-9, 2005. https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/19/05-0284-W.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco notes that the testing published during the NPRM showed
``excellent'' repeatability and reproducibility for head excursions (CV
= 2.7 percent) yet there was a difference in the data of 23.7 mm. As
discussed above, the CV ``ratings'' were established to evaluate dummy
responses in qualification tests, so we do not have a defined scale of
what CV ratings would apply for a more complex system like the frontal
sled test. However, a 23.7 mm difference is less than 3 percent of the
head excursion performance limit. A 3 percent difference in performance
does not amount to an unreasonable degree of variability in a complex
system with multiple variability sources. Graco noted that the chest
acceleration data reported in the NPRM showed a CV of 4.2 for
reproducibility tests with the Graco Affix. NHTSA considers a chest
acceleration CV of 4.2 percent as low and representing good
repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy measure. NHTSA assures
the safety of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment under the
self-certification framework of the Safety Act through its assessment
of the manufacturers' basis for certification. Manufacturers self-
certify their products knowing that NHTSA can perform its own testing
following the manufacturers' certification. Accordingly, they strive to
produce vehicles and equipment that will meet the FMVSS performance
requirements when tested by NHTSA. We cannot comment on Graco's test
results as we do not have enough information on the tests to make any
determination on the sources of the increased CV values. The data
available to NHTSA, however, show variability as controlled to a small
and reasonable level.
In addition to the above tests, NHTSA tested 3 additional CRS
models and installation configurations 3 times to further evaluate the
in-lab repeatability. All these tests had injury measures with CV
values under 10. More detailed tables are available in Appendix A and
Appendix B to the preamble.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ Reports on this testing will be docketed with the final
rule. (1) Horn, W. and Maltese, M.R. ``Phase 2 Summary Report FMVSS
No. 213 Proposed Updated Frontal Standard Seat Assembly'' Calspan.
September 2020, (2) Hauschild, H.W. and Stemper, B. ``Final Summary
Report for FMVSS 213 R&R Testing Updated Frontal Standard Seat
Assembly'' MCW. December 2020, (3) Hauschild, H.W. and Stemper, B.
``Final Summary Report of FMVSS 213 R&R Testing Updated Frontal
Standard Seat Assembly'' MCW. November 2021.

Table 3--CV Percent Values for Repeatability Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
QTY HIC36 acceleration RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Scenera Next--Rear-Facing--12-Month-Old--Lower Anchor Only Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan......................................... 3 5.0 6.6 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84535]]

Chest Head excursion Knee excursion
QTY HIC36 acceleration (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxi Cosi Pria \101\ HIII-10YO Forward-Facing CRS--Type 2 Belt Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan......................... 3 n/a 3.9 0.8 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Youth HIII-10YO--Belt-Positioning Seat--Type 2 Belt Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC............................. 3 n/a 0.9 1.9 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, NHTSA's data shows that good R&R can be achieved by
the proposed test equipment and test procedures. While CV analysis
cannot identify the different sources of variability, the system as a
whole, including variability sources that are independent of the system
we are evaluating (e.g., CRS design, pulse variation, etc.), showed
good R&R and NHTSA is proceeding to adopt the proposed standard seat
assembly with minor changes based on comments. These changes are
discussed in another section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ Maxi Cosi 85. We note that on August 24, 2021 Dorel issued
a recall on the Maxi Cosi 85 CRS due to increased risk of injury in
the event of a crash if the seat is installed with only the lap
belt. The Maxi Cosi Pria 85 units tested in this R&R study were
included in the scope of this recall; however, the test performed in
the R&R study utilized a lap and shoulder belt installation which
differed than the installation method identified in the recall. See
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RCLRPT-21C003-8612.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Addition of an ATD Head Protection Device (ATDHPD)
The drawing package of the updated standard seat assembly adopted
by this final rule depicts use of an ATDHPD, at NHTSA's option, as a
housekeeping measure to prevent damage to NHTSA's dummies in some
tests. The ATDHPD, which NHTSA developed, is a metal part that is
padded on one side that mounts on the seat back structure of the
standard seat assembly. It is positioned behind the head area of a
dummy seated in a CRS on the standard seat assembly.\102\ Testing with
the proposed standard seat assembly showed the back of the head of the
HIII-6YO and HIII-10YO dummies directly hitting the metal frame on the
top of the seat back when the dummy is rebounding from the frontal
loading. With repeated testing, this impact will likely damage the head
of the dummies. Use of the ATDHPD, which is easily installed and
removed, prevents this damage as the padding softens the impact of the
dummy's head during rebound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ The ATDHPD resembles a head restraint, but it was not
designed to be representative of one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The addition of the ATDHPD does not affect the performance of the
CRS while in frontal loading and may prevent or minimize unnecessary
damage to a dummy's head. Testing of two belt-positioning seats with
and without the ATDHPD showed that results were comparable and achieved
acceptable repeatability (see Table 4 and Table 5).
While one of the belt-positioning seats tested was a high back
model, NHTSA is only specifying the optional use of the ATDHPD when
using backless belt-positioning seats. This is because the head impacts
were occurring with backless belt-positioning seats, as there was no
back on the CRS to prevent the rebound head motion. Also, while test
data show there was no difference in testing with and without the
ATDHPD, NHTSA would like more data to verify that all high back belt-
positioning seats would be unaffected by the ATDHPD. Therefore, NHTSA
is only specifying the optional use of the ATDHPD for backless belt-
positioning seats due to the high potential for damage to the dummies
when testing these types of child restraint systems.

Table 4--Test Results of Cosco Pronto With and Without ATDHPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Test No. HIC36 acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
(g) (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Pronto--HIII-6YO--Belt-Positioning Seat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR05-19-13............................................. 650 58.7 528 613
RR05-19-14............................................. 621 51.9 525 605
RR05-19-15............................................. 663 52.5 533 613
Calspan Without ATDHPD:
St. Dev............................................ 21.6 3.8 4.3 4.3
Average............................................ 645.1 54.4 528.7 610.1
CV................................................. 3.4 7.0 0.8 0.7
RR06-20-32 *........................................... 582 50.2 537 610
RR06-20-33 *........................................... 575 53.7 539 612
RR06-20-34 *........................................... 511 51.5 538 607
Calspan * ATDHPD:
St. Dev............................................ 39.5 1.8 1.3 2.3
Average............................................ 556.1 51.8 538.1 609.6
CV................................................. 7.1 3.5 0.2 0.4
All:
St. Dev............................................ 56.4 3.0 5.9 3.1
Average............................................ 600.6 53.1 533.4 609.8
CV................................................. 9.4 5.7 1.1 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84536]]

Table 5--Test Results of Chicco GoFit With and Without ATDHPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Test No. HIC36 acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
(g) (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicco GoFit NB--HIII-10YO--Belt-Positioning Seat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR06-19-40............................................. n/a 47.5 502 676
RR06-20-26............................................. n/a 45.5 496 662
Calspan Without ATDHPD:
St. Dev............................................ n/a n/a n/a n/a
Average............................................ n/a n/a n/a n/a
CV................................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a
RR02-20-24 *........................................... n/a 47.2 514 685
RR02-20-25 *........................................... n/a 44.9 498 671
RR06-20-40 *........................................... n/a 48.2 485 682
Calspan * ATDHPD:
St. Dev............................................ n/a 1.7 14.2 7.0
Average............................................ n/a 46.8 498.9 679.4
CV................................................. n/a 3.6 2.8 1.0
All:
St. Dev............................................ n/a 1.4 10.2 8.9
Average............................................ n/a 46.7 498.9 675.3
CV................................................. n/a 3.0 2.0 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Truncating Head Acceleration Time Histories
In the NPRM, NHTSA requested comment on whether, in a compliance
test, NHTSA should compute HIC36 for backless belt positioning seats
tested with the HIII-6YO dummy using an acceleration pulse that is
truncated to 175 msec.\103\ The seat back of the proposed standard seat
assembly was raised from an earlier version to reduce dummy head
contact with the rear seat structure of the proposed standard seat
assembly. While raising the seat back reduced the number of head
contacts with the rear seat structure, NHTSA observed that head contact
still occurs when testing backless belt-positioning seats with the
HIII-6YO dummy. In conducting research tests to inform the revisions to
these tests, the agency made the HIC36 calculation using a head
acceleration pulse truncated between 175-200 msec, which corresponded
to a time in the rebound phase before the head impact with the seat
support structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ 85 FR at 69424, col. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received and Agency Response
Consumer Reports supported truncating the data set at 175 msec. No
commenter opposed this truncation. NHTSA will incorporate a 175 msec
data truncation to exclude rebound high head accelerations from HIC36
calculations. The accommodation will only be made for backless booster
seats tested with the HIII-6YO dummy and not for all CRSs because this
configuration sometimes results in head acceleration spikes when the
dummy is rebounding into the updated standard seat assembly after the
simulated crash. Because the HIII-6YO seated in a backless booster seat
typically has a height higher than the seat back of the updated
standard seat assembly, the dummy's head hits the updated standard seat
assembly's metal frame causing the head acceleration spike.\104\ NHTSA
does not see the need to apply this truncation to other dummies and/or
other CRS types as a smaller dummy's head does not reach past the top
of the seat back \105\ and other types of CRSs typically have a seat
back of their own with structure and padding protecting the head of the
dummy, both of which prevent high HIC spikes against the seat back.
Moreover, NHTSA believes it is not in the interest of safety to
truncate HIC values in tests other than of backless booster seats
tested with the HIII-6YO dummy. If HIC values exceeded the standard's
limit were measured for any other type of CRS, or for backless boosters
using any other type of dummy, NHTSA would investigate those test
results as a noncompliance because they are indicative of a potential
safety concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ These high HIC accelerations are also present when using
the optional ATD Head Protection Device, therefore, HIC truncation
is still relevant for the HIII-6YO in backless booster seats.
\105\ The HIII-10YO dummy does not measure HIC, therefore, the
truncation is not an issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Drawing Changes
Graco identified potential errors in some of the drawings of the
proposed standard seat assembly \106\ or places where ambiguity exists
and suggested corrections or improvement. The commenter also suggested
improvements to the drawings to address variability. NHTSA discusses
these comments below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ May 2019 Child Frontal Impact Sled Drawing Package (NHTSA-
213-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimension Discrepancy
Graco notes there are multiple dimension call outs for the shoulder
belt anchor hole and requests NHTSA clarify which dimension takes
priority. The location is identified in the drawing package four times,
and three different vertical dimensions provided:

953 3 mm (3021-010, Sheet 1), using part 3021-209
as the reference plane
953 3 mm (3021-015, Sheet 1), using part 3021-209
as the reference plane
941 3 mm (3021-015, Sheet 2), using part 3021-200-
9 as the reference plane
877 6 mm (3021-1000, Sheet 1), using part 3021-
200-9 as the reference plane

In response, NHTSA believes that no changes to these drawings are
necessary. Drawings 3021-010&3021-0015-Sht1 reference the bottom of the
buck and include attachment plate (12.5mm/0.50'') foot; 3021-0015-Sht2
is referenced to the bottom of the 4-inch tube; and 3021-1000 is
referenced to the bottom of the 2-inch tube. Due to the different
reference points these dimensions need to be different.
Dimension Conflict
Graco notes that drawing 3021-209 has a conflict between the plate
thickness in the material note (thickness given as 12.5 mm) versus the
dimension on the face of the drawing (12.7 mm). It believes the intent
is to use standard

[[Page 84537]]

gauge plate as suggested by the 0.5 inch for thickness referred to in
the materials note, which would make the correct value 12.7 mm. It
requests that NHTSA reconcile the two dimensions.
In response, NHTSA has reconciled the dimension to 0.5 inch so that
drawings are consistent.
Missing Dimension
Graco comments on a dimension that may be missing for a seat back
support tube. On drawing 3021-015, Sheet 2, Revision D, section B-B, a
vertical dimension is called out for the second support tube, however,
Graco notes that there is a dimension missing for the third support
tube. Graco suggests that a dimension be given for this third tube to
ensure a consistent standard seat assembly.
In response, NHTSA has added dimensions for the seat tube as
suggested.
Notes
Graco requests notes clarifying the manufacturing intent when it
comes to several hole features. For reference, Graco states it
appreciates Note 1 of drawing 3021-265, Revision D, that calls for
mounting holes to be drilled after standard seat assembly. The note
communicates to standard seat assembly manufacturers that if the holes
were drilled into the individual parts before assembly, the resulting
tolerance stack up might place the holes in locations that preclude the
standard seat assembly from being used as intended. Graco requests
notes on the following:

3021-255, Sheet 1: Seat Frame Gusset Plate
3021-326, Sheet 1: D-Ring Anchor
3021-756, Sheet 1: Latch Belt Anchor Plate

Alternatively, Graco requests NHTSA omit the note from 3021-265.
Graco explains that because of the presence of Note 1 on 3021-265, and
its omission on the drawings for the three parts listed, there may be
some ambiguity as to whether these holes should be drilled and/or
tapped before or after assembly.
NHTSA is not making the suggested change. Each of the anchor
assemblies and pieces already have tolerances in each of the drawings.
It is up to the fabricator to determine whether to drill the hole prior
to welding or after. The final assembly drawing 3021-1000 is to be used
to verify the anchors are within specifications.
Tolerances of Z-Point
Drawing 3021-015, Sheet 1, Revision D, lists the horizontal and
vertical dimensions for the Z-point as 120 mm and 80 mm, respectively,
referencing the lowest, rearmost seat tubes. The tolerance per Note 1
on 3021-015 is 3 mm. The Z-point dimensions are called out
on drawing 3021-1000, Sheet 1, Revision A. However, the tolerance for
this Z-point is specified in Note 1 as 6 mm. Graco states
that if seat assembly manufacturers choose to use drawing 3021-1000 as
their reference, there is a possibility that two standard seat
assemblies made by different manufacturers could have Z-points off by
as much as 12 mm vertically or horizontally. Graco believes that this
maximum error difference of 12 mm versus 6 mm can have significant
consequences in lab-to-lab correlation scenarios. Graco requests that a
single tolerance value be harmonized across all drawings that are used
to locate the Z-point.
In response, NHTSA has revised Drawing 3021-1000 to note 3 mm for the Z-point dimension.
Materials Specifications
Graco requests the most recently published material standards from
AISI, ASTM, SAE, to be specified on each drawing. It notes that none of
the materials are specified beyond ``steel'' or ``steel, mild'' other
than the bold text in drawing 3021-332.
In response, NHTSA has changed the drawings so that steel is called
out by ASTM number. Drawing 3031-332 in the NPRM drawing package has
been removed but NTHSA added specific requirements on the detailed
assembly drawings with the correct type of steel, aluminum, etc.
Foam Cushion Drawings Density Specifications References
Graco comments that drawings 3021-233 Seat Pan Cushion and 3021-248
Seat Back Cushion refer to ``NHTSA Specifications on Preliminary
Bench'' in the Procurement Specifications and Test Certification
Specifications blocks (four references total). The commenters request
that these specifications be updated to indicate that they apply to the
representative test standard seat assembly specified in the NPRM.
In response, the agency has removed ``preliminary'' from the
drawing package for this final rule.
Type 2 Cantilevered Anchorage Beam
Graco identified a structural issue with the Rear Shelf Mount,
drawing 3021-850, that affects durability of the proposed standard seat
assembly and potentially the repeatability and reproducibility of test
results over time. Graco explains that the Rear Shelf Mount spans the
width of the proposed standard seat assembly structure and serves to
tie the Rear Locking Belt Mounting Bar Assembly (3021-333) to the
structure, as shown in the detail from the standard seat assembly
schematic drawing in the figure below.

[[Page 84538]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.002

Graco notes that this item is made from \3/16\-inch-thick extruded
steel angles with the material specified as ``mild steel.'' It states
that it observed upward flexing of this part when testing with all the
child dummies, and it is most pronounced when testing with the HIII-6YO
and the HIII-10YO dummies. The commenter provides an illustration of
this in a still image in its comment showing the Rear Locking Belt
Mounting Bar Assembly (marked before the test with yellow tape as seen
in the image) bending approximately 15 degrees from its normal
horizontal orientation during the dynamic test. Graco notes that the
moment arm created by the belt anchor location acting upon the Rear
Shelf Mount is causing the Rear Shelf Mount to deform where the two
parts are joined.
Graco found that the Rear Shelf Mount was permanently deformed to
5.7 degrees from the horizontal. It expresses concern that this part of
the structure is too thin and will eventually crack or tear. The
commenter suggests making the steel angle thicker (\1/4\''--\3/8\''),
using a higher strength grade of steel, providing additional local
reinforcement, and/or providing additional components in order to
rigidize the connection point for the Rear Locking Belt Mounting Bar
Assembly.
To assess the potential impact of the deformation on injury
criteria, Graco states it secured the Rear Locking Belt Anchor to the
main structure of the proposed standard seat assembly with a ratchet
strap to prevent some movement. The commenter assessed the relative
difference in motion of the Rear Locking Belt Mounting Bar Assembly
during a dynamic test with and without the ratchet strap. Graco states
it saw similar excursion values, similar or slightly increased chest
resultant values, and an overall decrease in HIC36 values. The
commenter expresses concern that this deformation is likely to
``creep'' over time, requiring maintenance cycles. It suggests some
child restraint systems may be more sensitive to the effects of bending
of the Rear Shelf Mount during testing.
In response, NHTSA has revised the drawings to update the anchor
beam to have a \3/8\-inch thickness instead of a \3/16\-inch thickness.
NHTSA's experience with testing with an anchor beam with a \3/8\-inch
thickness found no deformation. Strengthening the anchor beam addresses
Graco's comment.
Shoulder Belt D-Ring and Inboard Type 1 (Lap Belt) Anchor
Graco states that the shoulder belt D-ring (drawing 3021-123) and
the inboard Type 1 (lap belt) anchor (drawing 3021-120) are deforming
during testing. Graco explains that this deformation was observed after
only two or three tests with the HIII-6YO dummy. The commenter is
concerned that over time, one of these anchor points could fail during
a test. The commenter believes this deformation also calls into
question ``the repeatability and reproducibility of tests using
undeformed and deformed anchors.'' Graco recommends making the D-ring
and inboard anchor out of a harder type of steel and/or increase their
dimensions in the direction of loading to prevent them from bending
under dynamic forces.
In response, NHTSA will not change the materials of the D-Ring and
inboard anchor. These are parts that are meant to be replaced and NHTSA
will provide a pass/fail gauge in the test procedure that can be used
to evaluate when it is necessary to change them. Drawings for the pass/
fail gauges will be available in the drawing package. The Compliance
Test Procedure will include procedures to check the sled with the
gauges.
Sharp Edge in the Tether Strap Routing Path
Graco provided an image showing how the child restraint tether
passes over the top cross bar structure of the proposed standard seat
assembly. It notes that the sharp edge is caused by the Bench Seat Back
Plate (part number 3021-265) where the tether webbing makes contact,
potentially resulting in the webbing tearing. The commenter believes
that this risk may be greater if the proposed standard seat assembly
design is used for side impact testing. Graco recommends that the upper
edge

[[Page 84539]]

of the Bench Seat Back Plate be rounded off with a radius of at least
half the thickness of the plate stock or lowered slightly from the top
plane of the proposed standard seat assembly such that it does not
contact the webbing during testing, as it does not represent real
vehicle seating compartments.
In response, NHTSA agrees with the suggestion and has updated the
drawings (for the frontal and side standard seat assemblies) to round
the sharp edge on the seat back plate to prevent tether tearing.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ NHTSA revised the side impact drawings prior to the June
30, 2022 final rule to include these changes in FMVSS No. 213a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Why NHTSA Has Not Adopted a Floor (Reiteration)

In the NPRM, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from Volvo to
add a floor to FMVSS No. 213's sled fixture used in the compliance
test.\108\ Several commenters to the NPRM asked the agency to
reconsider the petition denial. NHTSA does not have a mechanism
recognizing requests to reconsider petition denials other than
considering them as regular correspondence to the agency. The agency is
under no legal obligation to respond to the NPRM comments requesting
NHTSA to reconsider the petition. However, since many were interested
in adding a floor to FMVSS No. 213's standard seat assembly, the agency
responds to the comments in the discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\108\ 85 FR at 69402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPMA, Evenflo, and Consumer Reports believe that a standardized
floor for the test sled would help ensure testing consistency of
support legs in all test labs. Additionally, SRN, Evenflo, and Volvo
believe a standardized floor would benefit testing of support legs.
Evenflo suggests that NHTSA create a separate compliance standard for
testing CRSs that feature a support leg. Volvo states that a
standardized floor is part of many European testing provisions for CRSs
and believes a floor is needed as part of the standard seat assembly to
enable the use of a support leg. Volvo believes that by including a
floor in the standard seat assembly ``and thereby enabling the use of a
support leg, the CRS can be made more comfortable, attractive and safer
for children.''
Agency Response
As noted above, NHTSA will not be including a standardized floor as
part of the test sled in this final rule. In this section, we
acknowledge the comments expressing interest in a floor and highlight
the following points reiterating our views in denying the petition for
rulemaking.
NHTSA wishes to emphasize at the outset that the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards set minimum safety standards. In other words,
FMVSS No. 213 sets a minimum threshold that all CRSs must pass to meet
the need for safety and does not set an upper limit for performance.
FMVSS No. 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from designing CRSs to
have support legs as long as the child restraint system can be
certified as meeting the standard without use of the support leg.
Manufacturers currently offer CRSs for sale in the U.S. with support
legs. The CRSs are more expensive than child restraints without legs,
but they are available. These CRSs are required by FMVSS No. 213 to
provide at least the minimum level of safety required by FMVSS No. 213
when the leg is not used. If a CRS cannot meet the requirements of the
standard without the support leg, FMVSS No. 213 prevents its sale in
the U.S.
This is because FMVSS No. 213 standardizes the means of attaching
the CRS to the vehicle to increase the likelihood of correct
installation of the child restraint. Under the standard's approach, a
caregiver does not need to learn novel ways of installing a child
restraint each time a new CRS is used, or each time a CRS is used in a
different vehicle, to ensure their child is protected by the restraint.
Standardization also ensures that the high level of protection provided
by FMVSS No. 213 will be provided by each CRS installed in every
vehicle simply by use of the seat belt or child restraint anchorage
system lower attachments, with or without a tether. NHTSA does not know
if caregivers will correctly use a support leg. Misuse and
nonattachment of tethers is a problem now. Requiring an additional
mechanism, the caregiver must properly manipulate for the CRS to be
properly installed only risks increasing the rates of misuse. If a CRS
is unable to provide at least the minimum level of safety required by
the standard without the support leg, then it would be detrimental to
safety to allow a leg if the leg may not be used.
If the commenters' support for a floor is based on the premise that
NHTSA would also permit the leg to be used as a means to comply with
FMVSS, our answer is we would not permit such use, based on the state
of current knowledge. Given possible misuse of support legs, NHTSA is
not convinced it would be appropriate to permit support legs to be used
to meet FMVSS No. 213. Data indicate that misuse of CRSs is high, e.g.,
tethers are not widely used despite how beneficial they are to safety.
We also do not know enough about unintended consequences to the child
occupant or other occupants seated nearby resulting from non-use of a
leg on the CRS.
NHTSA is concerned that providing a support leg could significantly
increase the average price of CRSs. NHTSA must balance any benefits
accruing from use of a support leg with the cost of the CRSs, as well
as the effect on the ease-of-use of the restraint. CRSs currently on
the market that include a support leg are generally more expensive than
CRSs without support legs. Requiring a support leg could make an
already expensive safety device more expensive and price some
caregivers out of the new CRS market.
We also strongly oppose, on principle, having FMVSS No. 213 apply
to some child restraints and another FMVSS with enhanced requirements
apply to other child restraints (that are likely at higher price
points). Such a system could be creating a ``have'' and ``have not''
ranking system that would essentially deem some child restraints safer
than others and some children more protected than others. Such an
approach would be confusing and unhelpful to consumers and, on its
face, unfair. The agency has devised minimum safety requirements that
are applied to all child restraints, so caregivers can be assured all
child restraints provide at least the same minimum level of protection
that NHTSA has deemed requisite to meet the need for motor vehicle
safety.
For the reasons described above, the agency is not devoting its
limited research and rulemaking resources on developing a floor for the
standard seat assembly.

VII. Retaining the Type 1 (Lap Belt) Installation Requirement

a. CRSs for Use in Older Vehicles

As noted above, there was widespread support for the proposal that
CRSs must be capable of being anchored to the standard seat assembly by
way of Type 2 belts and meet FMVSS No. 213 when attached with the
belts. However, SBS and SRN strongly oppose removing the requirement to
comply when tested with the Type 1 belt. These commenters believe it is
premature to remove the Type 1 belts test in FMVSS No. 213 as there are
still many vehicles in the vehicle fleet with Type 1 belts. The
commenters add that it is usually families with limited incomes that
use older vehicles to transport children. SBS states that ``41 percent
of U.S. children

[[Page 84540]]

live in low-income families. These children are more likely to be
transported in older vehicles and are known to be at greater risk of
injury in traffic collisions.'' SBS and SRN urge NHTSA to retain the
Type 1 belt test, at least for a while longer, to meet the needs of
persons who may own vehicles that do not have Type 2 belts in rear
seats.
SBS and SRN believe that there are differences in performance using
a Type 1 versus a Type 2 belt, and that testing with a Type 1 belt
results in more safety benefits than testing with a Type 2, i.e., a
Type 1 test presents more demanding conditions on the CRS than a test
with a Type 2 belt. SRN argues that the data NHTSA presented to
demonstrate that Type 2 provides the same, if not increased, safety was
insufficient. The commenters believe that a Type 2 belt may mitigate
the effects from lack of tether use by providing additional restraint
to the upper part of the child restraint, but that the tether anchor
point is not present in vehicle installations using only a Type 1 belt.
SRN argues that this creates a testing scenario that is not
representative of real-world installations of many children who ride
untethered in child seats secured with Type 1 belts in older model
vehicles.
SBS and SRN are also concerned that CRS manufacturers might
strongly warn consumers against Type 1 installation with their products
because FMVSS No. 213 will no longer specify testing of them with Type
1 seat belts. The commenters state that this would not only reduce the
availability of CRS to persons needing CRSs designed for attachment by
Type 1 seat belts, but also compel families with vehicles made before
MY 1989 to place CRSs in the front seat where there is a Type 2 belt.
SRN also believes that most CRSs will not be tested with the child
restraint anchorage system because with the appropriate test dummy,
they weigh 65 lb or more. (FMVSS No. 213 specifies that child
restraints must instruct owners not to use the lower anchors of the
child restraint anchorage system when the combined weight of the CRS
and the child is over 65 lb, to avoid overloading the lower anchors.)
Accordingly, a seat belt will be the primary means of attaching these
child restraints. SRN believes that child restraints should be assessed
in FMVSS No. 213 with a Type 1 seat belt as Type 1 seat belts will be
used to attach a child restraint in older model vehicles.
SRN also expresses concern about limitations that would be placed
on conventional CRSs used on school buses, where Type 1 belts are more
common than Type 2 belts, even in many newer buses. NHTSA notes that
IMMI and the Salem-Keizer Public Schools also comment on this issue,
but their views were supportive of the switch to certification using
the Type 2 belt.\109\ IMMI notes that some current pre-K transportation
programs, including Head Start programs, still choose to use passenger
vehicle CRSs in their school buses. IMMI states that in the case of
children under the age of two, passenger vehicle rear-facing infant
seats must be used as there are no school bus-specific CRS alternatives
and that many current school buses used for pre-K transportation will
only have Type 1 belts for the attachment of these CRSs rather than
Type 2 belts. However, IMMI does not believe that this consideration
should prevent adoption of the proposal. Salem-Keizer Public Schools
states that in Oregon, it is prohibited from purchasing a school bus
with Type 1 belts, only a bus equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly
is allowed. The commenter also states that it is beginning to
transition to a full fleet of school buses equipped with Type 2 belts.
In support of removing the Type 1 belt testing, Salem-Keizer Public
Schools states: ``While [transitioning to a full Type 2 fleet] will
take time, updating the crash test standards will ensure that CRSs used
in school buses have been tested using systems available to use in both
school buses and [multipurpose passenger vehicles].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ Under FMVSS No. 222, ``School bus passenger seating and
crash protection,'' school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) (large school buses) are not
required to have passenger seat belts. If a manufacturer voluntarily
installs passenger seat belts, it may be a Type 1 or Type 2 belt,
although NHTSA recommends Type 2 belts if a decision-maker had to
choose between the two. School buses with a GVWR up to 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) (small school buses) are required to have Type 2 belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
NHTSA appreciates the comments on this issue. After reviewing the
comments, we agree with SBS and SRN to retain the requirement to
certify certain CRS when installed solely with a Type 1 belt, for a
limited time for the reasons provided below. We will retain the
requirement until September 1, 2029, to allow time for the on-road
vehicle fleet to change over to where an estimated 90 percent of
passenger vehicles will have Type 2 belts in rear seating positions.
Our basis for the date estimate is explained later in this section.
NHTSA agrees with SRN and SBS's concerns regarding the availability
of CRSs that can be installed with Type 1 belts to persons with older
vehicles. We estimate that about 36 percent of the 2022 light duty
vehicle fleet are of model years (MY) 2000-2007 that do not have Type 2
belts in all rear seating positions.\110\ NHTSA concurs that 36 percent
is too high a value to begin allowing CRSs to be designed only for
vehicles with Type 2 belts in all rear seats. Some people driving MY
2006-2007 vehicles may not have the economic means to purchase a newer
vehicle with Type 2 belts in all rear seats. This decision to retain
the Type 1 test advances equity in vehicle safety by ensuring that
children are equally protected by child restraints no matter the
economic status of their caregiver or the age of the vehicle they are
riding in. This decision accords with the Safety Act and the principles
of E.O. 13985, ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal Government.'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\110\ Vehicle registration data for passenger vehicles (cars and
light trucks) were obtained from R.L. Polk's National Vehicle
Population Profile (NVPP), which is a compilation of all passenger
vehicles that have been registered in compliance with State
requirements. (R.L. Polk is a foundation of IHS Markit automotive
solutions.)
\111\ January 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's intent in the NPRM for testing CRSs with Type 2 belt
installation and removing the Type 1 belt test was to encourage future
CRS designs that take advantage of the shoulder belt portion of the
seat belt to reduce excursions. We also sought to reduce unnecessary
test burdens. However, we recognize the possibility of CRS
manufacturers restricting the installation of their CRSs with Type 1
belts. While Standard 213 would not prohibit CRS manufacturers from
voluntarily instructing owners they may use the CRS with a Type 1 belt,
we have seen that typically manufacturers do not recommend any
installation that is not in FMVSS No. 213, other than Type 2 belt
installations which are not yet required in FMVSS for non-booster CRSs.
For example, CRS manufacturers typically prohibit the use of CRSs in a
non-forward-facing vehicle seating position, even though CRSs are
highly effective in the field when subjected to crashes in all
directions (which mimic the accelerations of a non-forward-facing
seating position). The agency believes that CRS manufacturers prohibit
this orientation because their CRSs are not tested in that manner in
the FMVSS No. 213 sled test protocol. NHTSA is retaining the Type 1
belt provisions to assure the continued wide availability of CRSs to
caregivers with vehicles with only Type 1 belts in rear seats.

[[Page 84541]]

Retaining the requirement for CRS to be certified as meeting FMVSS
No. 213 when anchored by the Type 1 seat belt best assures CRSs
anchored with Type 1 seat belts will continue to meet FMVSS No. 213. In
current CRS designs, the lap belt portion of the Type 1 and Type 2 belt
installation follow the same routing path and the shoulder belt portion
has minimal interaction, so sled test results with Type 1 belt and Type
2 belt installation are similar. Even though there were only a few test
comparisons in the NPRM, we see this design commonality among CRS
designs and expect similar performance in installations using Type 1
and Type 2 belts as the shoulder portion of the Type 2 belt has little
interaction with the CRS during the test and does not, for example,
hold down the top of the CRS back. However, future designs could change
and the shoulder portion of the Type 2 belt could be routed in a
different manner on a particular child restraint. NHTSA is retaining
the Type 1 belt provisions to ensure that a CRS anchored with a Type 1
belt will meet the standard's requirements just as it will have to meet
the standard when anchored with a Type 2 belt.
SBS suggests that, to reduce compliance costs, the standard could
provide that if a child seat meets the requirements with a Type 1 belt,
it will not be tested with a Type 2 belt. NHTSA has decided not to
adopt that approach. If future child seat designs change and Type 1 and
Type 2 belts are no longer routed the same way through the child seat,
subjecting CRSs to testing with both the Type 1 and Type 2 belts
assures the child restraint will meet the standard when anchored using
either belt type.
Lastly, retaining the requirement to certify CRS with the Type 1
seat belt until 2029 provides time for pupil transportation programs to
use current child restraints on vehicles that only have Type 1 belts.
And from now until 2029, we anticipate that manufacturers will be able
to develop ``school bus child restraint systems,'' permitted by this
final rule, which are CRSs that are designed for exclusive use on
school bus seats. As a result of this rule, specially designed CRSs
will be able to step in when the lap-belt attachable child restraints
are no longer required to be made. We also believe that, between now
and September 1, 2029, more school buses will be equipped with Type 2
belts compared to Type 1 belts. This is because FMVSS No. 208 requires
Type 2 belts on small school buses rather than the formerly required
Type 1 belts, and because increasing numbers of schools are ordering
large school buses with Type 2 belts rather than Type 1 belts when they
seek to have passenger seat belts on the vehicles.
Basis for the 90 Percent Estimate
Child restraint systems will be subject to the requirement to meet
FMVSS No. 213 with a Type 1 belt until September 1, 2029, to allow time
for the on-road vehicle fleet to change to a fleet with Type 2 belts in
rear seats.\112\ In 2004, NHTSA issued a final rule requiring all light
vehicles to be equipped with Type 2 belts in all designated rear
seating positions by September of 2007.\113\ Data indicate that 36
percent of the 2022 light duty vehicle fleet are from model years 2000-
2007 \114\ and may not have Type 2 belts in all rear seating positions.
The same data indicate that by 2029, 90 percent of the light duty
vehicle fleet will be vehicle model year 2008 and later, meaning that
90-plus percent of vehicles in the light duty vehicle fleet will be
equipped with Type 2 belts in all rear seating positions from 2029
onward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ As explained in the next section, child harnesses will be
tested indefinitely with the Type 1 belt.
\113\ NHTSA issued a final rule on December 8, 2004 requiring
all vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds (light duty
vehicles) to be equipped with Type 2 belts in all designated rear
seating positions by September 1, 2007. The requirements were phased
in. 69 FR 70904.
\114\ Vehicle registration data for passenger vehicles (cars and
light trucks) were obtained from R.L. Polk's National Vehicle
Population Profile (NVPP), which is a compilation of all passenger
vehicles that have been registered in compliance with State
requirements. (R.L. Polk is a foundation of IHS Markit automotive
solutions.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA agrees with SRN and SBS's concerns regarding the availability
of CRSs that can be installed with Type 1 belts to persons with older
vehicles. We are mindful that a portion of vehicles in the vehicle
fleet will only have Type 1 belts in some rear seating positions. We
also know that this portion of vehicles will decrease every year. With
the decreasing availability of Type 1 belts in the fleet, the need to
require CRSs to meet Type 1 belt requirements lessens with time.
Using the 2022 vehicle fleet data set, we can look at the
cumulative percentage of vehicles of a specific model year or newer
(see Table 6). Data shows that 91 percent of all light duty vehicles
are MY 1999 or newer, 95.3 percent are MY 1994 or newer and 97 percent
are MY 1989 or newer. Assuming the fleet continues aging in a similar
manner \115\ we can estimate that 90 percent of the light duty vehicles
will be MY 2008 or newer in 2029, 95 percent of them in 2034 and 97
percent of them in 2039 (see Table 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ The pandemic slowed down sales due to supply chain issues.

Table 6--Percentage of Vehicles in the 2022 Vehicle Fleet by Range of
Vehicle Model Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All
MY Range Cars LTVs LDVs
(%) (%) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of MY Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984-2022.................................... 97.1 98.7 98.1
1985-2022.................................... 96.9 98.6 97.9
1986-2022.................................... 96.7 98.4 97.7
1987-2022.................................... 96.4 98.2 97.5
1988-2022.................................... 96.2 98.0 97.3
1989-2022.................................... 95.9 97.7 97.0
1990-2022.................................... 95.6 97.4 96.7
1991-2022.................................... 95.4 97.1 96.4
1992-2022.................................... 95.1 96.8 96.1
1993-2022.................................... 94.7 96.5 95.8
1994-2022.................................... 94.3 96.0 95.3
1995-2022.................................... 93.9 95.3 94.8
1996-2022.................................... 93.3 94.5 94.0
1997-2022.................................... 92.6 93.7 93.3
1998-2022.................................... 91.7 92.5 92.2
1999-2022.................................... 90.5 91.3 91.0
2000-2022.................................... 89.1 89.5 89.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7--Projected Years for MY 2008 or Newer Share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All
Share (%) Cars LTVs LDVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Year for MY 2008+ Share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90........................................... 2029 2029 2029
95........................................... 2036 2033 2034
97........................................... 2044 2037 2039
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree that eliminating the Type 1 installation tests when 36
percent of the vehicle fleet is older than 2008 MY vehicles would be
premature for the reasons discussed above. But Type 1 installation
tests become less necessary for safety with the continued reduction of
the share of older vehicles (older than 2008 MY) having Type 1 belts.
The Type 1 tests may be preventing CRS manufacturers from designing
lap-shoulder belt paths that may function as a tether. This pseudo-
tether would reduce a child's head excursions, reducing injury
severities and lowering the fatality risk for a larger portion of the
market.
Accordingly, after balancing the above considerations, NHTSA will
proceed with eliminating the Type 1 installation provisions but delay
the effective date until September 1, 2029. This will give enough time
for 90 percent of the vehicle fleet to be comprised of vehicles MY 2008
or newer. Thus, CRS manufacturers will continue to produce CRSs capable
of Type 1 installations to

[[Page 84542]]

families with older vehicles that have Type 1 belts in rear seating
positions.
The agency will also sunset the requirement of providing a diagram
with the child restraint system installed with lap belt (S5.5.2(l)(2))
as it will no longer be a requirement, but we note that manufacturers
can voluntarily provide such diagram after the requirement sunsets.

b. Installing Harnesses

A ``harness'' is a type of child restraint system. (When we refer
to a ``harness'' in this section (b), we mean a harness that is not
exclusively produced for school bus use.) ``Harness'' is defined in
FMVSS No. 213 as ``a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint
system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps,
webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating
structure for the child'' (S4). The child wears the harness like a vest
and typically sits directly on the vehicle seat wearing the harness. A
harness does not boost the child. A harness is not a booster seat.
Currently under FMVSS No. 213, a harness is attached to the
standard seat assembly in a compliance test by way of the Type 1 belt
and a tether. It makes sense that harnesses are attached with a Type 1
belt, as the purpose of a harness is to restrain a child's upper body
in the absence of a shoulder belt,\116\ i.e., when there is only a Type
1 belt in the vehicle. The November 2, 2020 NPRM proposed replacing the
Type 1 seat belts on the standard seat assembly with Type 2 seat belts.
Under the regulatory text of the NPRM, harnesses would have been
attached to the standard seat assembly by the Type 2 seat belt because
only Type 2 belts would be on the standard seat assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ It is the agency's understanding that in the past, the
Type 1 belt was routed through a belt path that was sewn on the
harness behind the child's back, but nowadays it appears many
harnesses route the belt in front of the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained above, after considering SRN and SBS's comments, NHTSA
has decided in this final rule that the Type 2 seat belt on the
standard seat assembly should not fully replace the Type 1 belt. There
is a safety need to be able to assess the performance of child
restraints made for Type 1 belts. NHTSA has made a similar
determination relative to harnesses. Harnesses are designed for use
with a Type 1 belt. A harness provides upper body restraint to children
when only a Type 1 seat belt is present. Harnesses should continue to
be tested with the Type 1 belt on the standard seat assembly to assess
their performance when installed with Type 1 seat belt, viz., to assess
their ability to provide upper body restraint. For such an assessment
to be true, the influence of the shoulder belt should be excluded from
the test.
Thus, not only is testing harnesses with a Type 1 belt reflective
of their intended use, testing harnesses with a Type 2 belt would be
troublesome. FMVSS No. 213 does not allow harnesses to be tested with
the Type 2 belt that is currently on the standard seat assembly because
it does not make sense to do so. A Type 2 belt is simply a lap/shoulder
belt, and if a lap/shoulder belt were routed in front of a child, like
with an adult, the harness is not functioning as a child restraint
system.\117\ Devices designed to simply route a Type 2 belt are not
``child restraint systems'' because they do not restrain, seat, or
position children in a motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ Standard 213 defines a ``child restraint system'' as ``any
device, except Type 1 or Type 2 seat belts, designed for use in a
motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children
who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 [pounds]) or less.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the above reasons, we have decided it does not make sense to
change the status quo by testing harnesses with a Type 2 belt. The
purpose of a harness is to provide upper body restraint in a vehicle
with only a Type 1 belt, so that is how harnesses should be tested. It
would not be sensible to assess the devices with a Type 2 belt if the
Type 2 belt is what is restraining the child occupant. Accordingly,
this final rule specifies that harnesses will be tested with the Type 1
belt. The provision does not sunset in 2029.
NHTSA has been contemplating the role that harnesses should have in
child passenger safety going forward. There have been so many child
passenger safety achievements over the years, but harnesses seem to
have been left behind. Among other things, NHTSA has required: Type 2
belts in rear seating positions for the betterment of children, a
dedicated child restraint anchorage system, side curtain air bags that
can benefit children who sit raised up on the vehicle seat, side impact
protection requirements for child restraint systems, and labeling
provisions geared to keep children in the highly protective confines of
a child restraint system longer. Additionally, the agency is learning
more about the effectiveness the measured seated height, i.e.,
boosting, may have for a child so they are better able to maintain an
in-position posture in a crash. Yet, harnesses are excepted from or are
unable to provide the advantages of these developments to a child
occupant. NHTSA is interested in exploring what role, if any, harnesses
should have in the modern era of child passenger safety.

VIII. Communicating With Today's Caregivers

a. The CRS Owner Registration Program

1. Background
This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213's (S5.8) CRS owner
registration program and associated labeling requirements relating to
the program. This final rule removes many of the standardization
requirements for the information card portion of the registration form
and provides additional options to reflect modern advances in
communication technology, allowing manufacturers to better communicate
with today's caregivers.
NHTSA created the CRS owner registration program in 1992 to improve
the number of CRS owners responding to recalls from manufacturers.\118\
It is vital that CRS owners are made aware of CRS recalls so they can
complete the recall process by having their CRS either remedied or
replaced by the recalling manufacturer. The number of CRS owners who
respond and complete the recall process with a recalling manufacturer
contributes to NHTSA's calculation of the recall completion rate, and
NHTSA is committed to improving that number. The agency believes that
the adopted amendments discussed below will further that goal by giving
manufacturers increased flexibility to communicate the importance of
the CRS owner registration programs with their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\118\ Final rule, 57 FR 41428, September 10, 1992. NHTSA
requires manufacturers to record and maintain records of persons
registering as owners or purchasers of child restraint systems for a
period of not less than six years from the date of manufacture of
the CRS. 49 CFR part 588, ``Child restraint systems recordkeeping
requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule adopts virtually all the proposed changes to the
CRS owner registration program described in the NPRM. Notably, this
final rule removes restrictions on the messaging and design of the
information portion of the card (the top part of the card above dashed
line, as shown in Fig 9(a) of current FMVSS No. 213). In response to a
comment, the final rule also gives CRS manufacturers the flexibility to
include a QR code on the registration form to increase ease of
registration for today's caregivers. Second, in response to a comment,
this final rule requires that a space for a phone number be included on
the ``mail-in'' portion of the card (the bottom part of the card below
dashed

[[Page 84543]]

line, as shown in Figure 9(a) of current FMVSS No. 213).
The purpose of the CRS owner registration program is to increase
CRS recall completion rates, and that purpose has not changed since the
program's inception in 1992. In the late 80s and early 90s, NHTSA
believed that the recall completion rate could be increased by
disseminating recall information directly to individual owners. Prior
to the program, consumers were only indirectly notified of a safety
recall by notice to the general public, such as postings at
pediatricians' offices. Evidence at the time showed that CRS owners
were eager to know if their CRS was recalled and were highly motivated
to remedy their CRS if it had been recalled.\119\ However, before the
CRS owner registration program, there was only a 10 to 13 percent
completion rate for CRS recalls. Given this paradox, NHTSA believed the
recall rate was so low because owners were unaware that their CRS had
been recalled. NHTSA adopted the CRS owner registration program to
facilitate direct notification to owners in a recall campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\119\ NPRM, February 19, 1991, 56 FR 6603, 6604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 1992, the average recall completion rate has increased from
percentages in the low teens to 40 percent in recent years. Although
this increase has moved the completion rate in the right direction, the
agency seeks to increase the rate, especially considering that the CRS
recall completion rate is low compared to the recall completion rate
for vehicles, which was an average of 79 percent between 2006 and 2015.
NHTSA believes the recall rate can be increased by increasing the CRS
registration rate, which is currently around 23 percent. That 23
percent is particularly low considering the mail-in card includes paid
postage and takes minimal effort to fill out.
The registration form consists of two parts.\120\ The first part is
the ``information card,'' which contains language on the importance of
registering the CRS and instructions for how to register. The second
part is the ``mail-in card,'' which is to be filled out, and mailed to
the manufacturer, by the owner. On the mail-in card, manufacturers must
preprint their return address and information identifying the model
name or number of the CRS to which the form is attached, so that owners
do not need to look up and provide that information themselves, as
looking up the information could serve as an impediment to completing
the registration process. The mail-in card must have distinct spaces
for the owner to fill in their name and address and must use tint to
highlight to the owner that minimal input is required to register. To
distinguish the registration form from a warranty card that some
caregivers choose to ignore, the requirements prohibit any other
information from appearing on the registration form, except for
identifying information that distinguishes a particular CRS from other
systems of that model name or number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ See Figures 9a and 9b of Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213;
Child restraint systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 1992 final rule, NHTSA decided to make the registration form
highly standardized.\121\ This was based off information the agency had
gathered from a study of consumers' attitudes about the then-proposed
program. Researchers found that participants--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ Final rule, supra, 57 FR at 41429, col. 2.

[I]ndicated that they would be most likely to return a pre-
addressed, postage-prepaid card with an uncluttered graphic design
that clearly and succinctly communicates the benefits of recall
registration, differentiates itself from a warranty registration
card, and requires minimal time and effort on the participant's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
part.

NHTSA is encouraged that CRS recall completion rates have increased
after the final rule, which is a clear indicator that the CRS owner
registration program was an important step to improving recall remedy
rates. However, given the advances in communication technologies and
improved capabilities of manufacturers to communicate with their
customers, the agency is confident the recall rate can be increased by
way of the new technologies. NHTSA believes giving manufacturers more
flexibility in their communication methods with customers will increase
registration and recall completion rates. Thirty years have passed
since the registration form requirements were finalized in the 1992
final rule. In that time, a generation of children has grown up to
become the new caregivers of today. This new generation grew up with
and continues to interact with rapidly changing advancements in
electronic outreach, communication, and technology. NHTSA believes that
the advantages gained from highly standardizing the mail-in form at the
outset of the program in 1992 can be surpassed by the gains from giving
manufacturers increased flexibility to communicate the importance of
registering a CRS and in the means of registering, and will lead to
increased registration rates. The agency also understands the
importance of ensuring registering CRSs remains as straightforward and
easy as possible, and we considered that important balance in issuing
this final rule.
2. Comments to the NPRM and NHTSA's Responses
General
The agency received thirteen comments on the proposed amendments to
the CRS owner registration program from private individuals, public
entities, manufacturers, advocacy groups, hospitals, private companies,
and research institutions. The overwhelming majority supported the
relaxation of restrictions for the information card portion of the
registration form. An overwhelming majority also supported the option
of allowing manufacturers to include a QR code on the information card
to improve ease of registration for many of today's caregivers.
Information Card
NHTSA proposed to remove the restrictions on size, font, color,
layout, and attachment method of the information card portion of the
CRS registration form. The agency also proposed that the wording on the
information card would no longer be prescribed, giving CRS
manufacturers leeway to use their own words to convey the importance of
registering a CRS and instructions on how to register. The agency also
proposed to apply these relaxed style and wording requirements to
labels and printed instructions for proper use referencing the
registration form.
As stated above, most commenters expressed strong support for the
proposed design changes to the information card. However, SRN notes a
concern that too much variability in the designs of the information
card could render the registration form unrecognizable. The commenter
believes that caregivers typically purchase multiple CRSs as their
child grows so it would be a drawback if registration forms were not
readily recognized as a registration forms. SRN also comments that
NHTSA should not assume that all manufacturers will be equally
thoughtful in their design of the information card, and that it is
possible some manufacturers will use cluttered or difficult-to-read
designs. The commenter recommends that NHTSA develop and supply
standard pictograms that manufacturers can use on the information cards
to limit the amount of artistic freedom manufacturers have.
Additionally, SBS suggests that NHTSA encourage an industry-wide
approach to design of the information cards to ensure consistency

[[Page 84544]]

of messaging and to guard against conflicting messaging being
established by manufacturers.
Agency Response
Although there is a non-zero risk some manufacturers may use
designs or language for the information card that are difficult to read
or understand, NHTSA believes that this risk is relatively small and is
outweighed by the advantages that could be gained by increased design
innovation. It is in a manufacturer's best interest to increase recall
completion rates so that children are as protected as possible in their
restraints, so it would not be logical for a manufacturer to
intentionally design a cluttered registration form that is difficult to
read. NHTSA believes there may be benefits to different designs in
information cards, as standardized features may lose their efficacy
over time. NHTSA adopted registration form requirements in 1992 \122\
and updated the requirements to include paid postage in 2005.\123\ In
2005, NHTSA reported a registration rate of 27 percent. Currently NHTSA
estimates having a 23 percent registration rate. While there may be
other factors for the registration rates decline, NHTSA believes the
rigid design of the registration form could be a factor in the decline
and a barrier to increase the registration rates. Because manufacturers
have the resources and expertise to design their products to best
appeal to their customers, a top-down approach established by NHTSA
could be counterproductive to the benefits of varying designs and
creative freedom. For the above reasons, NHTSA declines at this time to
adopt SRN's recommendation that NHTSA put specific creative limitations
on the information card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\122\ 57FR41428.
\123\ 70FR53569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Style and Language Requirements for the Information Card
The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI) and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) cautioned
that removing all style and language requirements could hamper the
goals of increasing registration numbers. CHOP recommended that all
materials be written at a 3rd-5th grade reading level to ensure that
all caregivers, regardless of their level of education, will be able to
understand the importance of registering and how to do so.
Agency Response
We understand the benefits of CHOP's recommendation on having the
registration form text be written at a 3rd-5th grade level to ensure
all caregivers will be able to understand the material in the
registration form. However, new requirements on readability and how
would they be measured is out of scope of this rulemaking. Since there
are different readability scales and tools to measure readability, the
agency would have to research which scale and methods are most
appropriate to evaluate readability consistently so that the
requirements are enforceable. We appreciate the thoughtfulness of
CHOP's comment and recommend that CRS manufacturer consider developing
their registration forms with this issue in mind.
Mandatory Statement To Distinguish the Information Card
In addition to the style and language aspects of the information
card, NHTSA also proposed to permit or possibly require a statement to
be present on the information card that informs the CRS owner that the
information collected through the registration process is not a
warranty card and that the information will not be used for marketing
purposes. Comments were generally supportive of requiring such a
statement on the information card.
Agency Response
NHTSA supports inclusion of the statement on the information card
and is expressly permitting its inclusion. However, NHTSA has decided
not to require the statement. Part of the goal of this rule is to
provide increased flexibility to manufacturers to drive more effective
registration cards, and the agency does not know how a mandated
statement may limit the design choices manufacturers make in designing
their information cards. In some instances, the statement may take away
from the overall goal of a specific design. From the agency's point of
view, inclusion of the statement may be beneficial in some instances,
but to be consistent with NHTSA's goal to increase manufacturer
creativity on information cards, the agency believes inclusion of such
a statement is the manufacturer's choice, not the agency's.
Accordingly, NHTSA agency has decided not to mandate the statement at
this time.
Electronic Registration Form
In addition to the amendments to the information card, NHTSA has
also decided to adopt the NPRM's proposals to the electronic
registration form.
FMVSS No. 213 currently permits manufacturers to provide a web
address on the information card to enable owners to register online
(S5.8.1(d)). The web address must provide a direct link to an
``electronic registration form'' meeting the requirements of S5.8.2 of
the standard. Under S5.8.2, the electronic registration form must
conform to a specified format and include certain content, including:
(a) A prescribed message to advise the consumer of the importance of
registering; (b) prescribed instructions on how to register; and (c)
fields to record the CRS's model name or number and date of
manufacture, and the owner's name, mailing address, and optionally, the
owner's email address.
The NPRM proposed to amend S5.8.1(d) so that the electronic form
may be reached by using methods other than a web address, such as a QR
code or tiny URL. NHTSA also proposed to change the requirements of (a)
and (b) above, from NHTSA-prescribed messages to messages crafted by
the CRS manufacturer.
Comments regarding these two proposals were overwhelmingly positive
and the agency has decided to adopt the proposals for the reasons
stated in the NPRM. However, Graco commented that scannable
registration aids should only use open-source or non-proprietary
methods and not require consumers to install any special software onto
their cell phone. Additionally, Graco recommended that where a
scannable graphic is used, a full or reduced sized URL should be
printed on the information card to allow direct access to the
registration website. In response, NHTSA believes that prohibiting the
installation of specific software--such as a QR code reader--would
defeat the purpose of exploring different electronic means of
registration, as some CRS purchasers may have cell phones without QR
code reader software installed. Accordingly, the agency has decided
against Graco's recommendation to prohibit the prompt to install
specific software when scanning a QR code. Regarding Graco's second
comment, NHTSA agrees that requiring a printed URL on the information
card allowing direct access to the registration website would ensure
the consumer could reach the registration page if they do not have the
technology or ability to scan the QR code. Therefore, NHTSA is adopting
this recommendation as part of the final rule.
Mail-In Card
The NPRM sought comment on whether other elements should be

[[Page 84545]]

added to or eliminated from the currently required mail-in card, and if
leeway should be given on how the mail-in card is formatted.\124\ NHTSA
received only one comment regarding the mail-in card. Graco commented
that it would be beneficial to include a space on the mail-in form for
a purchaser to input their telephone number. NHTSA agrees that
receiving telephone numbers from CRS purchasers will give manufacturers
increased flexibility to communicate with owners about potential
recalls. Accordingly, NHTSA is adopting the requirement that a space
for a telephone number (provided at the consumer's option) be included
on the mail-in card as well as on all electronic registration forms as
part of the final rule. FMVSS No. 213 Figure 9a has been updated
accordingly to reflect this amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\124\ 85 FR at 69426, col. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detachable Mail-In Card
The agency requested comment on whether a two-part registration
form was warranted, and, proposed that manufacturers can decide how the
information card is attached to the mail-in card.\125\ The agency also
stated in the NPRM that the mail-in card portion should be easily
detachable form the mail-in card portion without the use of scissors
and the like. NHTSA did not receive any comments on this aspect. This
final rule provides the proposed flexibility on how the information
card is attached, while specifying that the information card should be
easily detachable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ 85 FR at 69425, col. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on Labels and Printed Instructions (Owner's Manuals)
The NPRM proposed that provisions in FMVSS No. 213 requiring
information on registering CRSs on child restraint labels and in
owner's manuals also be amended to reflect the adopted changes.\126\
NHTSA did not receive any comments on this proposal. The agency has
adopted this proposal for the reasons provided in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ 85 FR at 69426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Issues
SBS recommended that NHTSA create a focused campaign to emphasize
the importance of caregivers registering their CRS. SBS indicated that
combining registration with a perk like an extended warranty could help
increase registration rates. This final rule is focused on amending the
style requirements for the information and mail-in card, so a focused
media campaign would be outside the scope of this rulemaking. That
being said, NHTSA will continue to work toward raising awareness
surrounding the importance of registering CRSs. NHTSA also encourages
any effort by industry to incentivize registration.
Salem-Keizer Public Schools suggested adding a requirement that
manufacturers send an electronic receipt for electronic CRS
registrations, and that the receipt should indicate the date when the
CRS owner will no longer be notified of a potential recall. NHTSA has
decided not to include this requirement in the final rule. CRS
manufacturers may consider sending this information voluntarily. If a
manufacturer sends an electronic registration receipt shortly after a
consumer registers, NHTSA considers such a receipt as part of the
registration process. Thus, such a communication would be consistent
with our expectation that the consumer information gathered by the
caregiver's registration will only be used for recall purposes. NHTSA
views a registration receipt as acceptable as long as it is sent
shortly after the registration and the content of the receipt only
conveys information related to the registration.
4. Summary
NHTSA believes that the amendments to FMVSS No. 213 discussed above
will increase registration rates and by extension, recall completion
rates. The amendments will enhance the visibility of the registration
program by allowing manufacturers additional creativity in their
messaging, while at the same time increasing ease of registering by
taking advantage of modern technology. Improving messaging and ease of
registration will increase CRS recall completion rates and lead to
improved safety outcomes for child passengers.

b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs

1. Background
This final rule amends multiple labeling and owner use information
requirements under FMVSS No. 213. Specifically, the rule addresses
multiple aspects of FMVSS No. 213 S5.5 and S5.6. The safety need
addressed by this final rule is to increase the number of children
properly secured in child restraint systems, which includes correctly
using the child restraint that is appropriate for the child's size.
This need exists for both add-on (portable) child restraints and built-
in child restraints. (These terms are defined in FMVSS No. 213, S4.)
Thus, the rule amends the labeling and owner use information
requirements for add-on and built-in child restraints.
The NPRM proposed three amendments to the labeling requirements
outlined in S5.5 and S5.6: (1) Requiring that manufacturers that sell
CRSs that can be used in multiple ``modes'' (forward or rearward)
provide information about the weight and height of children for each
mode of use; (2) requiring that CRSs may only be recommended for
forward-facing use by children weighing a minimum of 12 kg (26.5 lb);
(3) requiring that the recommended use of a booster seat be increased
from the minimum of 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18.2 kg (40 lb). In addition to
these three amendments, the NPRM also proposed easing labeling
restrictions to allow manufacturers increased flexibility in conveying
use information to consumers.
There were a total of 18 comments regarding these sections of the
NPRM. There was general support for the proposed labeling changes. Most
of the comments regarding the three proposals were supportive, but some
comments did recommend different amendments for various reasons. As
discussed in detail below, NHTSA will be adopting the three proposals.
NHTSA will also be adopting the NPRM's proposed changes that ease
labeling requirements. JPMA commented that giving manufacturers
flexibility to use their own language and diagrams on labels could
better facilitate the production of certain CRS models that are
compliant with regulations in multiple countries, including Canada.
JPMA also noted that decreasing the need for separate labeling could
help reduce overall production costs and aid in keeping CRSs
affordable. Comments to the NPRM's proposal to delete paragraph
S5.5.2(k)(2) from FMVSS No. 213 were also generally supportive. Graco
indicated that the requirement has created confusion for caregivers as
to the actual maximum permitted rear-facing weight limit for their
child restraint, and that the information consumers need to make the
right usage decisions based on their child's weight and height will be
better provided on the label(s) containing the information specified in
paragraph S5.5.2(f). NHTSA agrees and will be deleting paragraph
S5.5.2(k)(2) in this final rule.
2. Labeling by Mode Use
NHTSA and the entire child passenger safety community strongly
recommend that children up to the age of 1 ride rear-facing at least up
to the age of 1. NHTSA further recommends that children 1 to 3 years of
age ride rear-facing for as long as possible, until they reach the
manufacturer-recommended upper height or weight limit for riding

[[Page 84546]]

rear-facing in the CRS. Finally, NHTSA recommends that children 4 to 7
years of age ride forward-facing in CRSs with internal harnesses so
long as they are within the height and weight limits of their
particular CRS, as established by the CRS's manufacturer.
Currently, FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2(f) requires a statement, for the
overall maximum and minimum height and weight ranges of the children
for whom the CRS is recommended, which are not broken down by modes of
use. This can result in confusion for caretakers, as the information
only tells the caretaker whether that CRS is appropriate for their
child, but not whether it is appropriate for the child to face forward
or rearward in a convertible CRS. For example, consider a convertible
CRS that states it is fit for use by children weighing 5 to 65 lb (2.3
to 29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48 inches (121.9 cm). Under the
current standard, this would comply with the requirements under FMVSS
No. 213 S5.5.2(f). In this scenario, a caretaker has no way of knowing
what the height and weight limits are for forward- and rear-facing use.
NHTSA proposed to amend the requirements such that manufacturers that
sell CRSs that can be used in multiple ``modes'' (forward and rearward
facing) would have to provide information about the weight and height
of children for each mode of use.
Comments and NHTSA's Response
The comments were overwhelmingly supportive regarding the NPRM
proposal to require CRS manufacturers to provide use information that
describes the height and weight recommendations for each mode of use in
which the CRS can be used. Accordingly, NHTSA is adopting this
requirement for the reasons explained in the NPRM.
Graco suggested that all proposed changes affecting labels become
mandatory concurrently. Additionally, Graco suggested that
manufacturers be provided the option to relocate the information in
S5.5.2(f) upon issuance of the final rule or a short time thereafter.
NHTSA is establishing a 1-year compliance date for the labeling
requirements as well as allowing early compliance. This gives
flexibility to the manufacturers on when they want to introduce those
changes. However, if Graco is asking whether it may meet only amended
S5.5.2(f) early and not the other amendments to FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA's
answer is no. If a manufacturer chooses to implement early an amendment
that has a compliance date of one year, it must implement all the
amendments that have a one-year compliance date. This issue is further
discussed in the Lead Time and Compliance Dates section of this
preamble.
3. Increasing the Forward-Facing Weight Recommendation
As discussed in the section above, NHTSA and the entire child
passenger safety community agree that children up to the age of 1
should be kept riding rear-facing at least up to the age of 1. However,
under the current standard, over half the children under 1 year of age
do not fall under the recommendation. The current standard--FMVSS No.
213 S5.5.2(k)(2)--sets the minimum weight recommendation for a child in
a forward-facing CRS at 9 kg (20 lb). A 50th percentile 1-year-old
weighs 9.9 kg (22 lb), which makes the 9 kg (20 lb) threshold far too
low.
CRSs used rear-facing support the infant or toddler's posterior
torso, neck, head, and pelvis, and help to distribute crash forces over
the strongest parts of the infant or toddler's body. Developmental
considerations, including incomplete vertebral ossification, more
horizontally oriented spinal facet joints, and excessive ligamentous
laxity put young children at risk for head and spinal injury. CRSs used
rear-facing address this risk by supporting the child's head,
preventing the relatively large head from moving independently of the
proportionately smaller neck.
Although NHTSA recommends that children 1 to 3 years old ride rear-
facing in the appropriate CRSs for as long as possible to address the
above risks, many caregivers are not following this recommendation and
instead appear to be following labeling instructions that specify a
turnaround weight of 9 kg (20 lb). While the instructions comply with
FMVSS No. 213, they have led to less-than-optimal positioning of
infants and toddlers in vehicles. NCRUSS data indicate that, among
children weighing less than 9 kg (20 lb), 93 percent were restrained in
a CRS rear-facing, yet among children weighing 9 to 13.1 kg (20 to 29
lb), only 22 percent were restrained rear-facing in a CRS. The agency
proposed to require that CRSs may only be recommended for use in the
forward-facing direction by children weighing a minimum of 12 kg (26.5
lb), which corresponds to the weight of a 95th percentile 1-year-old, a
75th percentile 18-month-old and about a 50th percentile 2-year-old.
Comments and NHTSA's Response
Comments were generally supportive of the increase in turnaround
weight from 9 kg (20 lb) to 12 kg (26.5 lb). All comments on this issue
supported an increase, but some comments recommended a different
weight. For the reasons discussed below, NHTSA has decided to adopt the
12 kg (26.5 lb) increase in this final rule.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), UMTRI, and Safe Ride News
(SRN) recommend an increase to 13.6 kg (30 lb). AAP states that, ``Most
rear-facing-only and convertible seats currently on the market can
accommodate a 30-lb child rear-facing,'' and that increasing the
recommendation to 30 lb would help demonstrate to caretakers the
benefits of keeping their child rear-facing as long as possible. UMTRI
argues that a 30 lb recommendation would correspond to a 75th
percentile 2-year-old, encompassing more of that age group than the
proposed 26.5 lb recommendation. SRN notes that a 30 lb recommendation
would be an easier weight milestone for caretakers to track and that it
would be preferable to well exceed the weight of a 95th percentile one-
year-old.
While NHTSA understands the arguments in favor of this
recommendation, increasing the turnaround weight to 13.6 kg (30 lb)
would be substantially beyond the minimum recommendation for all 1-
year-old children riding rear-facing. We believe it would be best to
thoroughly vet possible unintended consequences of a 13.6 kg (30 lb)
limit for forward-facing CRSs prior to making such a change. One
concern relates to how a change to 13.6 kg (30 lb) might curtail the
ability of low-weight older children (e.g., 4- and 5-year-old children
who are 1st to 5th percentile in weight) to ride in forward-facing CRSs
when the children outgrow a CRSs used rear-facing because of their
height. A 13.6 kg (30 lb) turnaround weight may limit the availability
of any kind of child restraint system for these children as the
children would be too tall for CRSs used rear-facing but under the 13.6
kg (30 lb) turnaround height. If CRSs were unavailable, a caregiver
might place the child in the vehicle seat belt alone, significantly
raising the safety risk to the child in a crash. NHTSA believes it
would be prudent to thoroughly investigate unintended consequences,
such as the one described above, that may result from raising the
turnaround weight to 13.6 kg (30 lb).
Britax, JPMA, SRN, Graco, and Consumer Reports comment that,
instead of a number with a decimal (26.5 lb), it would be beneficial to
use a whole number, as caregivers likely don't track their child's
weight down to

[[Page 84547]]

the half-pound. Graco commented that the number should be a multiple of
5 suggesting a 25 lb weight should be adopted. NHTSA disagrees with
establishing a whole number in the standard in this case. Lowering the
figure to 11.7 kg (26 lb) would decrease the population NHTSA is trying
to target (95th percentile 1-year-old children). On the other hand,
increasing the figure to 12.2 kg (27 lb) would slightly increase the
population NHTSA is trying to target, but would still not be a multiple
of 5 as Graco suggested. The 12 kg (26.5 lb) weight transition is a
minimum number and manufacturers can choose a round number greater than
26.5 that best accommodates their CRS design, if they wish to do so.
Graco, SRN, and Volvo recommend using age recommendations as
opposed to weight recommendations. NHTSA disagrees that using age as a
criterion is preferable to using weight and height, as CRSs are
designed and recommended by the manufacturer using weight and height.
NHTSA is using weight in lieu of age by establishing minimum weight
limits that correspond to the 95th percentile 1-year old child. This
ensures that children up to 1 year of age are in CRS that are facing
rearwards. The updated minimum child weight recommendation for CRSs
that are used in a forward-facing mode aligns the standard to NHTSA's
car seat recommendations, which are age based, but also refer to the
weight and height recommendations of the CRS.
Also, weight and height characteristics are the most relevant
parameters affecting crash force mitigation, rather than a child's age.
The standard selects the different child dummies used to evaluate CRSs
based on the CRS's weight and height recommendations to ensure the CRS
is engineered to safely attenuate and manage crash forces when used by
a child who is within the CRS's child weight or height recommendations.
Some commenters support an age recommendation to increase the
likelihood that a child would be mature enough to stay properly seated
in a CRS (particularly a booster seat). FMVSS No. 213 permits CRS
manufacturers to include an age recommendation, as long as that
recommendation does not conflict with FMVSS No. 213's requirements.
S5.5 states, in pertinent part: ``Any labels or written instructions
provided in addition to those required by this section shall not
obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or be
otherwise misleading to the consumer.'' \127\ Accordingly, NHTSA will
not be including an age recommendation as part of the final rule. CRS
manufacturers may choose to include an age recommendation for their
CRSs, including booster seats, provided the age recommendation comports
with S5.5 and all other applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\127\ To illustrate, the age recommendation cannot contradict
the requirement that booster seats must only be recommended for
children weighing more than 40 lb. Thus, by way of example,
manufacturers are not permitted to recommend a booster for use by 2-
or 3-year-olds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SBS states that labeling and public messaging on the increase of
the minimum forward-facing CRS weight limit should be carefully crafted
to avoid conflicting with either best practice recommendations or State
laws. (The commenter states: ``26.5 lbs. is rarely the correct weight
for children to ride forward facing by these metrics.'') The commenter
appears concerned about the interplay of an FMVSS No. 213 turnaround
weight of 26.5 lb with best practice recommendations, and State law
requirements, that children ought to ride rear-facing until, e.g., a
particular age. In response, the increase to 12 kg (26.5 lb.)
establishes a minimum turnaround weight; it does not require
manufacturers to specify that the child must ride forward-facing at 12
kg (26.5 lb). It re-sets the minimum for the turnaround weight by
prohibiting manufacturers from instructing that a child weighing less
than 12 kg (26.5 lb) may ride forward-facing. The new turnaround weight
(increased from the current 20 lb turnaround weight) is more consistent
with current recommendations on when to transition a child to forward-
facing, meaning this amendment to the standard will bring it more in
line with best practice recommendations and related State laws.
4. Increasing the Belt-Positioning Seat Weight Recommendation
NHTSA believes that FMVSS No. 213 currently permits manufacturers
to recommend moving children from a CRS with an internal harness to a
belt-positioning seat (``booster seat'') too soon. Although NHTSA
recommends that children riding forward-facing should remain in a CRS
with an internal harness for as long as possible before transitioning
to a booster seat, FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2(f) currently permits booster
seats to be recommended for children weighing 13.6 kg (30 lb). Thirty
pounds corresponds to the weight of a 50th percentile 3-year-old, and
the weight of a 95th percentile 18-month-old. The 2020 NPRM proposed
increasing the recommended booster seat weight to 18.2 kg (40 lb) \128\
which is greater than the weight of a 97th percentile 3-year-old (17.7
kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the weight of an 85th percentile 4-
year-old. This change in minimum child weight recommended for booster
seat use to 18.2 kg (40 lb) would result in more 3- and 4-year-old
children being transported in forward-facing CRSs with an internal
harness. In the NPRM, NHTSA cited a 2010 study (``2010 study'') based
off exclusively NASS-CDS data to explain why the agency proposed to
increase the booster seat weight recommendation to 18.2 kg (40
lb).\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\128\ As discussed previously, the standard uses weight in lieu
of age.
\129\ Sivinski, R. ``Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based
on CDS and State Data''. July 2010. DOT HS 811 338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
There were no comments that opposed changing the minimum weight
recommendation for belt-positioning seats from 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18.2
kg (40 lb). Commenters agreed that adopting this amendment would help
prevent early transition to boosters, reduce injuries and fatalities of
3- and 4-year-olds, and harmonize the FMVSS with a counterpart Canadian
CRS standard. However, several commenters (Dorel, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), JPMA, a private individual) state
that NHTSA should not use NHTSA's 2010 study (``the 2010 study'') as a
justification for the amendment.
Agency Response
NHTSA's 2010 study recognized that there were limitations to the
conclusions that could concretely be drawn from the study because of
how sparse the child occupant data were in the sample. The 2010 FARS
data files did not distinguish belt-positioning seats from CRSs with
internal harnesses. Because of this, the 2010 study could not use the
FARS census data to compare the performance of belt-positioning seats
to CRS with harnesses. The 2010 study instead used unweighted NASS/CDS
sample data, despite the sparse nature of the child occupant data in
NASS/CDS, and supplemental state data, because those were the data
available to the agency at the time. Because of the sparse nature of
the data, the unweighted data with supplemental state data had to be
weighted for the analysis.
NHTSA recognized the limits of the 2010 study from the very
beginning, and in December 2020 NHTSA published a

[[Page 84548]]

new study (``the 2020 study'') examining the effectiveness of different
types of CRSs in mitigating both nonfatal injuries and fatalities to 1-
to 8-year-old children and compared them to children restrained only by
seat belts.\130\ The 2020 study was published after the 2020 NPRM and
therefore the 2020 study was not available for discussion in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\130\ Pai, J.-E. ``Evaluation of child restraint system
effectiveness,'' December 2020. DOT HS 813 047. Docket No. NHTSA-
2020-0093-0054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2020 study addressed the shortcomings of the 2010 study. In the
2020 study, NHTSA examined the effectiveness of different types of CRSs
(CRSs with internal harnesses, and belt-positioning seats) in
mitigating both nonfatal injuries and fatalities to 1- to 8-year-old
children compared to children restrained only by seat belts. For this
analysis, the agency found that FARS data for 2009 and 2016
distinguished CRSs with harnesses from booster seats. These data were
not available at the time the 2010 study was published. The agency
conducted the analysis in the 2020 report using NASS-CDS data for the
years 1998 to 2015 for evaluating effectiveness of CRSs with internal
harnesses and belt-positioning seats in mitigating moderate-to-critical
injuries and serious-to-critical injuries. The FARS data for the years
2009 to 2016 were used to evaluate the effectiveness of CRSs with
internal harnesses and belt-positioning seats in mitigating fatalities.
The presence of the FARS data alleviates most, if not all, of the
concerns raised by commenters who pointed out the weaknesses of the
2010 study. The NASS-CDS data analysis in the 2020 study was conducted
using the maximum abbreviated injury (MAIS) scale, which is
significantly more robust than the KABCO injury scale used in the 2010
study. The child age groups considered in the 2020 analyses were 1 to
3-years-old, 3 to 5-years-old, 4 to 8-years-old and 7 to 8-years-old.
Logistic regression analysis of the weighted sample data was conducted.
The analysis considered various domain variables, including the type of
crash, driver characteristics, child occupant seating position, and
restraint type used.
The FARS data analysis in the 2020 study considered vehicles of
model years 1999 to 2017, with drivers restrained by seat belts and air
bags. The 2020 study used the same child age groups as in the NASS-CDS
analysis. The effectiveness of CRSs with internal harnesses and belt-
positioning seats in mitigating fatalities was evaluated using double
paired comparison analysis as well as logistic regression. The analysis
of the FARS datafiles in the 2020 study found similar results to the
2010 study from a double paired comparison analysis as well as the
logistic regression. The analysis considered driver restraint status
and crash type to mitigate confounding effects on the results.
Dorel expressed concern that NHTSA asserted in the NPRM that
children who weigh more than 18.2 kg (40 lb) are ``better protected''
in a CRS with harness than in a belt-positioning seat. The agency
believes Dorel misunderstood the statement in the NPRM that, ``NHTSA
believes that if belt-positioning seats were only recommended for
children weighing a minimum of 18.2 kg (40 lb), more 3- to 4-year-olds
will be transported in CRSs with internal harness, where they are
better protected at that young age, than in booster seats,'' \131\ and
offers the following detailed explanation for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\131\ 85 FR at 69390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2010 study and the 2020 study used child age to evaluate the
effectiveness of CRSs with internal harnesses and belt-positioning
seats instead of physical characteristics such as weight and height of
the child. This is because weight and height information are not
available in many cases, which would result in a high percentage of
missing values. The 2020 study considered age groups to permit
sufficient observations in each of the categories under evaluation. For
example, in the 3- to 5-year-old age group, among children in CRSs with
internal harnesses, 46 percent were 3-year-olds while only 19 percent
were 5-year-olds. Similarly, for this age group, among children in
belt-positioning seats, 19 percent were 3-year-olds while 47 percent
were 5-year-olds.
Since the weight and height of children vary considerably, there is
no one-to-one correspondence between the child age and height and
weight of the child. However, as noted in the NPRM, nearly all 3-year-
old and about 87 percent of 4-year-old children weigh less or equal to
18.2 kg (40 lb). Additionally, about 25 percent of 5-year-old children
weigh less than or equal to 18.2 kg (40 lb). Because of the range in
child height and weight for a specific age, NHTSA requires
specification of the child weight and height in labels for recommended
use of CRSs.
The 2020 study found that for 1- to 3-year-old children, CRSs with
internal harnesses were 47.3 percent more effective in mitigating
fatalities than belt-positioning seats, and nearly all 1- to 3-year-old
children weigh less than 18.2 kg (40 lb). NHTSA proposed an 18.2 kg (40
lb) minimum limit for belt-positioning seat use. Since about 87 percent
of 4-year-old children and 25 percent of 5-year-old children also weigh
less than 18.2 kg (40 lb), these children would also be recommended to
be restrained in CRSs with internal harnesses. The 2020 study found
that for 3- to 5-year-old children, CRSs with internal harnesses were
43.1 percent more effective in mitigating fatalities than belt-
positioning seats. From these data, NHTSA concludes children in this
age group who weigh less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) would also benefit from
the increase in the minimum child weight for recommending belt-
positioning seat use from 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb). The effect
would be that all 3-year-old children, 87 percent of 4-year-old
children, and about 25 percent of 5-year-old children would be
recommended to be restrained in CRSs with internal harnesses. This
could result in more 3- and 4-year-old children in CRSs with internal
harnesses than in belt-positioning seats, and thereby reduced child
occupant crash fatalities. As stated above, NHTSA will be adopting the
18.2 kg (40 lb) proposal from the NPRM as part of the final rule, and
the agency believes that the 2020 study is a sufficient justification
for doing so as it alleviates many of the concerns with the 2010 study.
5. Suggested Additional Booster Seat Labeling
AAP suggests it would be beneficial to have an additional label
indicating that a child must be developmentally mature enough to sit
properly in a booster seat. NHTSA disagrees that adding this labeling
requirement would be appropriate, as the agency is concerned about the
efficacy of such a label. Readiness for a booster is a subjective
determination that could change depending on a caregiver's judgment of
and experience with the child. An agency-worded instruction on how to
analyze a child's behavioral characteristics may not be productive.
Accordingly, NHTSA will not be including a behavioral labeling
requirement as part of the final rule. We note, however, that FMVSS No.
213 permits CRS manufacturers to include this kind of information on
the booster label or in the written instructions provided with the
restraint, as long as the information does not ``obscure or confuse the
meaning of the required information'' or is ``otherwise

[[Page 84549]]

misleading to the consumer'' (S5.5 in FMVSS No. 213).
Dorel, CHOP, and SRN comment that public messaging for booster seat
use should be done carefully so that caregivers do not misinterpret the
reason behind amending the standard. These commenters were generally
concerned with caregivers thinking that current CRSs on the market
targeted at children between 30 to 40 pounds are unsafe, and instead of
utilizing those CRSs, they will seat their child without a CRS or
booster seat. NHTSA agrees that public messaging is important, and all
labeling changes should be communicated to the consumer in the clearest
manner possible. We note that, because the labeling change will bring
the standard more closely in-line with NHTSA's booster seat
recommendations, this change will likely make the messaging from NHTSA
on booster seats clearer.
SRN and Volvo suggest that a minimum age be included as a
requirement for transitioning to booster seats. NHTSA does not agree
that including an age requirement would be appropriate or beneficial.
The agency believes particularly strongly about this in the context of
booster seats since children of the same age can vary greatly in size.
Not all forward-facing CRSs in the market can fit all children less
than 5 years old. If a 5-year-old or younger child outgrows their
forward-facing CRS due to weight or height but could not be put into a
booster seat because of age restrictions on a label, a caregiver would
have to acquire another harnessed-CRS or may decide to transport the
child without either a CRS with internal harness or booster seat.
Purchasing another CRS with internal harness is an expense that many
consumers may not be willing to make and transporting the child in a
seat belt alone presents serious safety risks. Accordingly, after
considering these potential consequences, the agency has decided
against including a minimum age requirement for transitioning to a
belt-positioning seat.
Volvo comments that children should use booster seats as soon as
they are big enough and mature enough to use them so that children can
take advantage of a vehicle's advanced seat belt functions. NHTSA
disagrees with Volvo, as the FARS data (2009-2016) discussed above
indicate that for all crashes, the risk ratio of a fatality for 3- to
5-year-old children restrained in a forward-facing CRS with a harness
is 45.6 percent less than the fatality risk for 3- to 5-year-old
children restrained with a booster seat. Volvo did not present any data
supporting its claims, whereas these data indicate that the children
that were restrained in forward-facing CRSs with an internal harness
were better protected than children restrained in a booster seat with a
vehicle seat belt.
6. Other Recommendations About Labels
SRN commented that NHTSA should encourage an industry-wide approach
to redesign labels to ensure consistency of public messaging and to
guard against conflicting usage recommendations. NHTSA believes
collaboration efforts by industry to optimize CRS labeling is a worthy
pursuit. NHTSA is providing flexibility with this final rule, however,
and does not believe it would be appropriate to mandate a universal
approach to label design as that would essentially replicate the status
quo. The agency does not wish to negate any of the benefits that could
be gained by giving industry the leeway to design their labels using
the words and diagrams they feel is most appropriate for their
consumers.
SRN and SBS recommend that NHTSA require a permanent, visible
indicator on all CRSs to communicate maximum child height for riding in
the CRS. SRN argues that this option is superior to a maximum rear-
facing height and weight recommendation and could be provided at little
cost to manufacturers. SBS recommends that this visual indicator be
mandatory and be located 25 mm (1 inch) below the top of the CRS shell.
Although NHTSA agrees that a visual landmark to help the consumer
recognize when the child has reached the recommended height may have
benefits, the agency has decided not to adopt this recommendation as
part of the final rule. For one thing, requiring a 25 mm (1 inch) mark
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Second, NHTSA is unable to
agree that mandating a 25 mm (1 inch) indicator below the top of the
CRS shell is the best way forward. We believe CRS manufacturers may
want to estimate this visual landmark in a different way, and they are
currently free to do so. Further, NHTSA does not currently know if the
25 mm (1 inch) below the top of the CRS shell is an appropriate
distance for current CRS designs and in any future designs. NHTSA has
not determined if the 25 mm (1 inch) distance is the most effective
distance from the head to the top of the CRS shell to mitigate severe
injuries or fatalities.
7. Summary
Similar to the agency's approach to the CRS registration form,
NHTSA is allowing manufacturers more creative freedom to communicate
with their customers on labels, as manufacturers best know their
customers and have the resources and expertise to maximize
communication with them. CRS misuse and installation mistakes remain a
significant problem. The agency reviewed all NASS-CDS and Crash Injury
Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) data files for the years 2003
to 2013 for instances in which children 12-YO and younger in CRSs in
rear seats of light passenger vehicles sustained AIS 3+ injuries in
frontal crashes without rollover. The most frequent cause of AIS 3+
injury to children, at 39 percent, was gross CRS misuse. This final
rule will provide manufacturers the opportunity to develop and
implement targeted messaging on correct CRS use that could reduce the
extent of CRS misuse. NHTSA believes the market provides a significant
incentive to designing effective labeling and diagram designs, and an
effective deterrent from designing ineffective labeling and diagram
designs. Nonetheless, NHTSA will continue to monitor CRS labels and
instructions to see how the information changes over time and whether
agency action is necessary.

IX. Streamlining NHTSA's Use of Dummies in Compliance Tests To Reflect
CRS Use Today

a. Introduction

All child restraint systems must meet FMVSS No. 213's performance
requirements when dynamically tested with dummies that represent
children of various ages. The current dummies used in compliance
testing of add-on and built-in child restraints are the newborn infant,
the CRABI-12MO, the HIII-3YO, the HIII-6YO, the H2-6YO, the weighted
HIII-6YO, and the HIII-10YO child dummy.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\132\ NHTSA also recently adopted a three-year-old child side
impact test dummy (Q3s) for use in side impact tests of add-on CRSs.
Final rule adopting FMVSS No. 213a; 87 FR 39234, June 30, 2022,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA selects the test dummy used in a particular test based in
part on the height (regardless of weight) or weight (regardless of
height) of the children for whom the manufacturer recommends for the
child restraint (S7). Table 8 below shows which dummies NHTSA uses to
test child restraints based on the height or weight recommendations
established for the restraint by the manufacturer. If a child restraint
is recommended for a range of children whose weight or height overlaps,
in whole or in part, two or more of the weight or height ranges in the
table, the restraint is subject to testing with the

[[Page 84550]]

dummies specified for each of those ranges.

Table 8--Current Use of Dummies Based on Manufacturer's Recommendation
(S7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS recommended for use by Are compliance tested by NHTSA with
children of these weights or these dummies (subparts refer to 49
heights-- CFR part 572)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight (W) <= 5 kg (11 lb); Newborn (subpart K)
Height (H) <= 650 mm (25.5
inches).
Weight 5 kg (11 lb) < W <= 10 kg Newborn (subpart K), CRABI-12MO
(22 lb); Height 650 mm (25.5 (subpart R)
inches) < H <= 850 mm (33.5
inches).
Weight 10 kg (22 lb) < W <= 18.2 CRABI-12MO (subpart R), HIII-3YO
kg (40 lb); Height 850 mm (33.5 (subpart P)
inches) < H <= 1100 mm (43.3
inches).
Weight 18kg (40 lb) < W <= 22.7 HIII-6YO (subpart N) or H2-6YO
kg (50 lb); Height 1100 mm (43.3 (subpart I) (manufacturer's option)
inches) < H <= 1250 mm (49.2
inches).
Weight 22.7 kg (50 lb) < W <= 30 HIII-6YO (subpart N) or H2-6YO
kg (65 lb); Height 1100 mm (43.3 (subpart I) (manufacturer's option),
inches) < H <= 1250 mm (49.2 and weighted HIII-6YO (subpart S)
inches).
Weight greater than 30 kg (65 HIII-10YO (subpart T)*
lb); Height greater than 1250 mm
(49.2 inches).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No HIC measured with HIII-10YO.
(Note: Add-on CRSs with internal harnesses that, together with a dummy,
weigh more than 30 kg (65 lb), are not tested with the dummy while
attached to the standard seat assembly using the child restraint
anchorage system. Instead, they are attached to the standard seat
assembly using the seat belt system.)

b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 10-13.6 kg (22-30 lb)

Currently under FMVSS No. 213, CRSs labeled for use by children in
the weight range 10 kg to 18.2 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) per Table 8 are
subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO and the HIII-3YO dummy
(S7.1.2(c)). NHTSA proposed amending S7.1.2(c) by splitting the 10 to
18.2 kg (22 to 40 lb) weight range into a 10 to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb)
and a 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb) weight range per Table 13. We
proposed that CRSs recommended for children in the 10 to 13.6 kg (22 to
30 lb) weight range would be tested with the CRABI-12MO, while CRSs for
children in the 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb) weight range would be
tested with the HIII-3YO.\133\ NHTSA proposed this change because, as a
practical matter, 3-year-olds are generally too large to fit in a CRS
recommended for children in the 22 to 30 lb weight range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ As a practical matter, most CRS would be subject to
testing using at least two dummies since most CRS are sold for
children of weights spanning more than one weight category. A CRS
that is recommended for a weight range that overlaps, in whole or in
part, two or more of the weight ranges is subject to testing with
the dummies specified for each of those ranges (571.213, S7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA discussed in the NPRM the anticipated effect that the
amendment would have on infant carriers.\134\ The current CRS market
has infant carrier models recommended for children weighing up to 10 kg
(22 lb), 13.6 kg (30 lb), 15.8 kg (35 lb), and 18.2 kg (40 lb) and with
child height limits ranging from 736 mm (29 inches) to 889 mm (35
inches). The agency expects that manufacturers will reduce the maximum
weight recommendations such that the restraints will be marketed for
children up to 13.6 kg (30 lb), in part because it will be easier to
certify CRS for children in this weight range with only the CRABI-12MO
dummy than in the wider weight range which will require certification
with multiple dummies. Further, NHTSA does not believe there will be
market demand for infant carriers that are recommended for children
weighing more than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Feedback from child passenger
safety technicians involved in child restraint system checks indicates
that infants usually outgrow infant carriers because of reaching the
height limit of the carrier rather than the weight limit. Further, as
an infant reaches a 13.6 kg (30 lb) weight, the weight of the infant
and the infant carrier together becomes too heavy for a caregiver to
easily pull out of the vehicle and carry around by a handle. Therefore,
parents often switch to a convertible or all-in-one CRS as the child
weight nears 13.6 kg (30 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\134\ An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed to be
readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It has a carrying handle
that enables caregivers to tote the child outside of the vehicle
without removing the child from the CRS. Prior to this final rule,
these infant carriers were subject to testing with the HIII-3YO (35
lb) dummy rear-facing under the provisions of S7. However, NHTSA has
not tested infant carriers with the 3-year-old dummy because, among
other matters, the dummy did not fit easily in infant carriers with
its stature of 945 mm (37.2 inches). Since infant carriers are
typically used with infants, and not with 3-year-olds, NHTSA decided
to propose not using the 3YO dummy to test infant carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters generally supported or did not oppose the proposal, but
Consumer Reports and Evenflo raised issues that we address below.
Comments Received and Agency Response
Consumer Reports (CR) suggests that NHTSA should expressly prohibit
infant carriers from being recommended for children weighing over 13.6
kg (30 lb), instead of limiting the maximum weight through the new
dummy selection criteria for the HIII-3YO dummy. NHTSA does not believe
there is a need for this approach. NHTSA believes that infant carrier
manufacturers will relabel or redesign their products to adopt the
maximum weight recommendation of 13.6 kg (30 lb), to avoid testing with
the 3-year-old dummy.
With current infant carrier designs, the 3-year-old dummy's head is
above the CRS shell; the dummy's head center of gravity (CG) will
exceed the upper head excursion limits when tested. Current infant
carriers would have to be redesigned to accommodate a 3-year-old's head
height. An infant carrier redesigned to meet FMVSS No. 213 with the
HIII-3YO dummy will likely have the utility and weight of a convertible
CRS used in the rear-facing mode than the utility and weight of an
infant carrier, which consumers may not find suitable for a carrier. We
recognize that some manufacturers might choose to continue to produce
infant carriers with

[[Page 84551]]

a maximum weight recommendation over 13.6 kg (30 lb). If this were to
happen, NHTSA will include these CRSs in the agency's compliance test
program and will test them with the 3-year-old dummy as described in
this final rule.
Comment and Response
CR opposed the proposal to remove the CRABI-12MO testing
requirement for CRSs with a 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18.2 kg (40 lb)
capacity. The commenter is concerned about infant carriers that may be
sold for children weighing over 30 lb. CR stated these infant seats
``are designed specifically for newborns and infants and should be
tested to ensure that the injury metrics for the average-sized infant
using those seats are within the appropriate injury thresholds.''
We believe CR has misunderstood the weight thresholds of the NPRM.
As explained in the NPRM and in FMVSS No. 213's regulatory text, ``If a
child restraint is recommended for a range of children whose weight
overlaps, in whole or in part, two or more of the weight ranges in the
table, the restraint is subject to testing with the dummies specified
for each of those ranges.'' \135\ Infant carriers with a 13.6 kg (30
lb) to 18.2 kg (40 lb) weight capacity also have weight recommendations
below 13.6 kg (30 lb), usually starting at 1.8 kg (4 lb). Therefore,
infant carriers that have an upper limit of 30 to 40 lb, and a lower
weight limit below 30 lb, will always be tested with the CRABI-12MO
dummy, in addition to being tested with the HIII-3YO under the NPRM and
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ See 85 FR at 69429, col. 3. See FMVSS No. 213 S7: ``A
child restraint that meets the criteria in two or more of the
following paragraphs in S7 may be tested with any of the test
dummies specified in those paragraphs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment and Response
CR recommends including a weighted CRABI-12MO to test for
structural integrity. The commenter states that the weighted dummy
changes the dynamics of the CRS and interaction with CR's testing using
a simulated front seat back, often resulting in head contact of the
dummy with the seat back ``even when height is within the allowable
confines of the shell.'' CR states that many of the structural
integrity issues it has seen have resulted at the upper limit of the
CRS weight capacity.
In response, CR's suggestion to adopt a weighted CRABI-12MO is
beyond the scope of the rulemaking. We note also that the FMVSS No. 213
standard sled assembly does not have a simulated front seat, so CR's
experience with the weighted dummy's head contacting the front seat
would not replicate the dynamics CR observed with a weighted CRABI-
12MO, or necessarily demonstrate the ``structural integrity issues''
\136\ the commenter said it found. We also note that CR did not provide
information about the structural integrity issues it saw, or data on
the extent to which head to front seat contact and loss of structural
integrity are present in the field. We thus do not find a need for a
weighted CRABI-12MO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\136\ FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1 has integrity requirements that
include no complete separation of any load bearing structural
element and no partial separation that expose surfaces with a radius
of less than \1/4\ inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than
\3/8\ inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable
surface of any structural element of the system. NHTSA interprets
load bearing structure to mean a structure that: (1) transfers
energy from the standard seat assembly to the CRS (e.g.,
installation components or CRS areas that contact the standard seat
assembly), or (2) transfers energy from the CRS to the occupant or
vice versa (e.g., belts and components to restrain the child, CRS
surfaces or parts transferring energy to the occupant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA believes infant carriers will most likely be relabeled or
redesigned to have a maximum weight of 13.6 kg (30 lb). This final rule
will eliminate the weight gap for testing the structural integrity of
CRSs now in test protocols where infant carriers recommended up to 20.4
kg (45 lb) are only tested with the CRABI-12MO dummy. NHTSA will
monitor the market and our test program results to explore if
structural integrity issues arise or if there is a need for additional
tests.
Comment and Response
Evenflo points out an incongruity between how we would test with
the CRABI-12MO and the provision in the NPRM that CRSs may only be
recommended for forward-facing use by children weighing at least 12 kg
(26.5 lb). Evenflo requests that the agency clarify how the CRABI-12MO
will be used in compliance testing if children represented by the dummy
would not be turned forward-facing until 26.5 lb. NHTSA agrees with
Evenflo on the need for clarification. We do not believe there is a
need to test a forward-facing CRS with the CRABI-12MO (weighing 9.9 kg
(22 lb)) because the dummy would be at least 2 kg (4.5 lb) less than
the weight of children for whom the CRS in forward-facing mode is
recommended. NHTSA is clarifying the regulatory text to make clear that
the CRABI-12MO will not be used to test CRS in the forward-facing
configuration for CRSs that can be used forward-facing.\137\ However,
to be clear, if a CRS can be used both forward-facing and rear-facing,
the CRABI-12MO will be used to test the CRS in the rear-facing
configuration. Further, this provision only applies to CRSs that are
certified to this final rule's new turnaround weight requirement. These
will be labeled with a turnaround weight of 12 kg (26.5 lb) or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\137\ Evenflo commented that until the 12-month-old dummy is no
longer used to evaluate forward-facing CRSs, the $540,000 cost
savings estimated in the NPRM likely will not be realized. We note
that the cost savings in the NPRM were related to infant carrier
tests with the 3-year-old dummy, which would still be actualized.
Removing the CRABI-12-MO forward-facing tests would result in
further cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA notes that this change has implications for the agency's use
of the CRABI-12MO in FMVSS No. 213a (Side Impact Protection) compliance
tests, supra.\138\ NHTSA plans to issue an NPRM to propose a conforming
amendment to FMVSS No. 213a that the CRABI-12MO would not be used
forward-facing in the side impact test for CRSs labeled with a
turnaround weight of 12 kg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ Final rule, 77 FR 39234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Height Specifications
This final rule also adopts proposed changes to the standard's
height specifications for testing with the dummies so that height
categories are consistent with the corresponding weight limits. This is
to simplify the standard. Commenters did not oppose the proposal, so it
is adopted as discussed in the NPRM.
First, this final rule adopts proposed S7.1.1(c) that specifies
that the CRABI-12MO dummy is used to test a CRS recommended for
children weighing 10 to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) or children in a height
range of 750 mm to not greater than 870 mm. A child weighing 13.6 kg
(30 lb) on average is about 870 mm (34.3 inches) tall. If the CRS is
recommended for children with heights over 870 mm, the CRS will be
subject to testing with the appropriate larger sized dummy.
Second, currently S7.1.2(b) specifies that the newborn and CRABI-
12MO dummies are used to test CRSs recommended for children in a height
range from 650 mm to 850 mm. The average height of a 12MO child is 750
mm (29.5 inches). This rule reduces the 850 mm limit to 750 mm to
correspond to the average height of a 12MO child (750 mm (29.5
inches)).

c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb)

This final rule adopts the proposed amendments affecting CRSs
labeled for use by children weighing from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 to 40
lb). Currently, these CRSs are subject to testing with the

[[Page 84552]]

CRABI-12MO and the HIII-3YO (S7.1.2(c)).\139\ NHTSA determined that the
CRSs do not need to be tested with the CRABI-12MO, since the 10 kg (22
lb) dummy is not representative of 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb)
children for whom the restraint is intended.\140\ Commenters were
supportive of the change. This final rule adopts a new S7.1.1(d) for
the 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb) range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ The CRABI-12MO is not used to test a booster seat
(S7.1.2(c)).
\140\ However, if such a CRS were also labeled for use by
children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), then the CRS is subject
to testing with the CRABI-12MO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new S7.1.1(d) specifies that NHTSA will test CRSs recommended
for children in the weight range of 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb)
with the HIII-3YO dummy. Also, to make the height specification for
testing with the dummy consistent with the corresponding weight limit,
this final rule adopts the proposed provision that NHTSA will use the
HIII-3YO dummy to test CRSs recommended for children in the height
range of 870 mm to 1,100 mm (34.3 to 43.3 inches), amended from 850 mm
to 1,100 mm (33.5 to 43.3 inches) per Table 13.
d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 18-29.5 kg (40-65 lb)--Use of the
HIII-6YO Dummy
FMVSS No. 213 currently provides child restraint manufacturers the
option of having NHTSA use the HIII-6YO or the H2-6YO in compliance
tests of CRSs for children weighing 18 to 29.5 kg (40 to 65 lb)
(S7.1.3). The NPRM proposed to remove the option and require that these
CRSs be tested only with the HIII-6YO. The agency prefers the HIII-6YO
as it is a more biofidelic test device than the H2-6YO, and also
because it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain replacement
parts for the older H2-6YO dummy. CRS manufacturers are increasingly
using the HIII rather than the H2-6YO dummy to certify their CRSs.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ Information from manufacturers to NHTSA in 2014 showed
that 43 percent of CRS manufacturers use the HIII-6YO to test their
CRSs, 21 percent use the H2-6YO and 36 percent use both dummies for
testing their various CRS models. Manufacturers using both the H2-
6YO and HIII-6YO dummies test at least 50 percent of their models
using the HIII-6YO dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has been interested in using the HIII-6YO in FMVSS No. 213
for many years. We adopted the dummy in the standard in 2003 after
determining that the dummy is ``considerably more biofidelic'' \142\
than the H2-6YO dummy and able to measure impact responses no other
child test dummy could measure, such as neck moments and chest
deflection. However, while the dummy is successfully used in FMVSS No.
208 to measure compliance with low-risk deployment and static
suppression tests of advanced air bags, problems arose in FMVSS No. 213
testing. In the demanding FMVSS No. 213 test environment where no air
bag is present, the HIII-6YO exhibited unrealistic chin-to-chest and
head-to-knee contact in tests of booster seats on the current standard
seat assembly. The contact resulted in inordinately high, oftentimes
failing HIC values recorded by the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ 68 FR 37644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA responded by adopting a provision permitting the optional use
of the H2-6YO dummy in place of the HIII-6YO. NHTSA originally intended
the optional use as a short-term measure but after extending the term
several times, NHTSA issued a final rule in 2011 to permit optional use
of the H2-6YO ``until further notice.'' The agency believed work was
needed on the dummy to ameliorate the chin-to-chest and head-to-knee
contact that was driving up the HIII-6YO HIC values.
As discussed in the NPRM preceding this final rule, the development
of the proposed FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly adopted in this final rule
changed the agency's plan. In developing the NPRM, NHTSA tested the
HIII-6YO in booster seats and in CRSs with internal harnesses on the
proposed standard seat assembly and found that the dummy did not
exhibit the high head injury measures and high head acceleration spikes
it showed on the current standard seat assembly. Chin-to-chest contact
occurred at times, but it was a significantly softer contact than the
contacts observed in tests on the current standard seat assembly and
would therefore not invalidate the results of the test. On the proposed
standard seat assembly, there were no high HIC values and high head
acceleration spikes. NHTSA explained that this change is due to the
firmer seat cushion on the proposed standard seat assembly that
prevents the CRS from bottoming out against the seat frame. The NPRM
provided data on dummy readings showing the peak head accelerations
curves of the HIII-6YO in tests with the proposed standard seat
assembly are lower in magnitude than in tests with the current standard
seat assembly and exhibit no severe head acceleration spikes.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\143\ 85 FR at 69431-69434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also proposed to use the HIII-6YO to improve our overall
assessment of CRS performance in the FMVSS No. 213 test. The HIII-6YO
dummy is more biofidelic than the H2-6YO dummy. The HIII-6YO has been
shown to have good kinematics replicating that of a human in slow speed
sled testing, exhibiting similar head and pelvis excursion as human
children.\144\ The agency believed the HIII-6YO would enhance the
realism of the standard's frontal impact test in assessing CRS
performance, particularly in regard to head injury.\145\ While HIC and
head excursion measurements were higher, NHTSA did not believe that
testing with the HIII-6YO alone would significantly affect the
manufacture of current child restraints. In our tests presented in the
NPRM with the dummy, all the CRSs tested passed FMVSS No. 213's HIC and
excursion limits with the dummy (except for the Evenflo Titan Elite
which failed the head excursion limit).\146\ Finally, NHTSA proposed to
only use the HIII-6YO dummy because replacement parts for the H2-6YO
dummy are becoming increasingly more difficult to procure. All test
dummies need refurbishment and parts replacement from time to time. As
the H2-6YO is not a state-of-the-art dummy, it has become more
difficult for NHTSA to obtain replacement parts for the dummy. If parts
are unavailable, the utility of the test dummy in NHTSA's compliance
test program is significantly diminished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ Seacrist, T., et al., ``Kinematic Comparison of the Hybrid
III and Q-Series Pediatric ATDs to Pediatric Volunteers in Low-Speed
Frontal Crashes,'' 56th Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine,
October 2012.
\145\ The HIII-6YO dummy yields a more accurate depiction of the
restrained child's head excursion and would help better ensure CRSs
are designed to prevent head impacts. The NPRM provided test data
showing the HIII-6YO exhibits higher HICs and more head excursion
than the older H2-6YO dummy in FMVSS No. 213 booster seat tests.
Paired T-tests indicated that the measured differences in HIC and
head excursion were significant (p-value <0.01).
\146\ See Table 11 of NPRM (85 FR 69411).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
Several commenters supported the mandatory use of the HIII-6YO
dummy in compliance testing. The University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (UMTRI) supported not further allowing the use of
the H2-6YO to test CRSs in the compliance test, as did CR and SRN. The
Automotive Safety Council (suppliers of safety systems to the auto
industry) stated that the HIII-6YO dummy still has shortcomings, but
use of the HIII-6YO in place of the H2 dummy ``is a welcome change as
the HIII is a much better ATD in mimicking human movement.''
On the other hand, several manufacturers opposed the proposal.
Graco, JPMA, Dorel and Evenflo

[[Page 84553]]

commented that they believe chin-to-chest contacts have not been
resolved. Graco said its testing showed chin-to-chest strikes had
occurred in tests of belt-positioning seats ``that artificially
increase the HIC scores.'' Graco argued this ``is not representative of
a real-world injury mechanism; it is simply an artifact of the neck
structure on this dummy.'' Graco, JPMA and Dorel referenced NHTSA's
statements in the 2011 final rule that allowed the optional use of the
H2-6YO dummy until further notice (76 FR 55826). We stated then that in
tests of the dummy on the sled existing at that time: ``The HIII-6C
dummy has a softer neck than the H2-6YO, which results in slightly
greater head excursion results and larger HIC values (chin-to-chest
contact) than the H2-6YO. This coupled with the stiff thorax of the
HIII-6C dummy, accentuates the HIC values recorded by the dummy.''
Graco and Dorel argued it is premature to adopt the HIII-6YO dummy as
the upgrades to the dummy discussed in the final rule have not yet been
adopted. JPMA and Dorel stated that additional tests are needed to
determine whether the proposed standard seat assembly has addressed the
limitations of the dummy for all types of CRSs. Evenflo believes that
more testing should be done of the HIII-6YO dummy on the proposed
standard seat assembly without a tether. It suggests that until such
testing confirms the HIII-6YO is appropriate for the seats that are
currently on the market, manufacturers should be permitted to have
NHTSA use the H2-6YO in compliance tests.
Graco presented data from repeat tests at Calspan with one belt-
positioning seat using the HIII-6YO dummy and found, in its opinion,
that slight child restraint and dummy pre-test setup variations allowed
by the current TP-213 and the NHTSA's Research Test Procedure cause the
head to swing forward and down into the chest plate, generating HIC
scores ranging from mid-500s to over 1000. Graco provided the data
shown in Table 9.

Table 9--Graco's Results of HIII-6YO Belt-Positioning Seat Tests on One Model of CRS
[Data provided by Graco]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Chest Knee excursion Head excursion
Installer Sled accel [g] [kph] HIC resultant [g] [mm] [mm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 23.9 48.0 546 56.7 564 687
2....................................................... 24.1 48.1 886 56.5 574 699
1....................................................... 24.0 48.1 689 58.2 472 700
3....................................................... 24.1 48.1 869 52.1 564 717
3....................................................... 24.1 48.1 864 52.7 577 720
3....................................................... 24.1 48.1 1020 53.7 582 731
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco said the CV for HIC of this set of tests exceeded 20. Graco
believed that ``any CV score greater than 10 is generally considered to
be a high-variance measurement system in need of improvement.''
Dorel stated that it completed 80 internal research tests using the
HIII-6YO dummy with the proposed standard seat assembly. Dorel said the
30 tests it conducted using a CRS with an internal harness showed no
concerning performance issues. The remaining 50 tests were completed
using the belt-positioning seat mode on 13 existing child restraint
platforms (including 3-in-1 convertibles, combination belt-positioning
seats and belt-positioning seats with and without backs). Dorel said
that 28 of those 50 tests had instances of chin-to-chest contact that
Dorel said contributed to elevated HIC scores. The commenter said all
28 of these instances occurred during testing of some 3-in-1,
convertible or combination child restraint models. Dorel argued these
types of child restraints were not well represented in the NPRM's belt-
positioning seat test data.
Dorel also said it completed 28 follow-up tests using the same 3-
in-1 convertibles and combination child restraints with the H2-6YO
dummy and the proposed standard seat assembly, to assess whether these
elevated HIC36 scores were related to the proposed standard seat
assembly or to the HIII-6YO dummy, or a combination. Dorel said its
data show that on average the HIC score of the HIII-6YO dummy is 575
points higher than the H2-6YO for the belt-positioning seat mode in
certain 3-in-1 convertible child restraints, and that in certain
combination CRS-belt-positioning seat modes, using the HIII-6YO dummy
resulted in HIC scores 728 points higher than when the H2-6YO dummy was
used.
JPMA and Evenflo stated that the HIII-6YO in an untethered
configuration of harnessed CRSs is not well-represented in the test
results in the NPRM. Evenflo noted that only three CRSs in this
configuration were tested by NHTSA and that some of those CRSs are no
longer in the market. Evenflo suggested more testing is necessary to
ensure that CRSs which have been in the market for years, particularly
larger, taller or all-in-one convertibles, will not be adversely
impacted by use of the proposed standard seat assembly and HIII-6YO
combination.
Evenflo, Graco, Dorel and JPMA recommended the continued option of
testing with the H2-6YO dummy until testing confirms that the changes
to the HIII-6YO would not negatively impact the current products, and
the HIII-6YO dummy's bio-fidelity regarding chin-to-chest contact has
been improved. Graco commented that, as an alternative, NHTSA should
provide a methodology for evaluating chin-to-chest strikes to provide
relief from HIC36 scores above 1000 that were caused by what the
commenter characterized as a non-biofidelic artifact of the test dummy
design.
Agency Response
This final rule ends the optional use of the H2-6YO child dummy and
adopts the HIII-6YO dummy in FMVSS No. 213 as the sole 6YO child dummy
on the compliance date indicated above. We disagree with the objections
of the commenters to the HIII dummy's head-to-chest contact. The
commenters refer to a statement from a 2011 final rule about the softer
neck of the HIII dummy compared to the neck of the H2-6YO dummy, but
the statement pertains to tests that were conducted on the current
FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly. As explained in the NPRM, the
current assembly in the standard has a very soft foam that bottoms out
\147\ against a rigid metal frame in some tests, which contributes to
the severe chin-to-chest contact observed with some CRSs. This

[[Page 84554]]

severe chin-to-chest contact has been just about eliminated by the
stiffer, more representative foam in the updated standard seat
assembly. The new foam will not collapse and bottom out like the
current standard seat assembly and will reduce or eliminate the abrupt
stop of the CRS and dummy at the time the foam is fully compressed,
which helps minimize the chin-to-chest contact. While chin-to-chest
contact was still observed, it did not result in severe chin-to-chest
contact (spikes that are higher than the head acceleration peak before
the chin-to-chest contact) that would significantly raise HIC values.
While a soft chin-to-chest contact (spikes that are lower than the head
acceleration peak before the chin-to-chest contact) might occur within
the time of the HIC calculation and may introduce some variability to
the HIC value, this contribution is not enough to be the cause of a
failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ Bottoming out is when a foam lacks support (fully
compressed) due to the amount of force being applied to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dorel pointed out that the HIII-6YO results in increased HIC values
compared to the H2-6YO. The HIII-6YO dummy has a softer neck than the
H2-6YO, which results in slightly greater head excursion results and
larger HIC values (chin-to-chest contact) than the H2-6YO. The HIII-6YO
has been suitable to evaluate many CRS designs in the current standard
seat assembly and NHTSA's test data shows that it will continue to be
suitable to evaluate CRSs in the updated standard seat assembly, as no
severe chin-to-chest contact was found during NHTSA's testing with the
updated standard seat assembly. While Graco presented data (see Table
9) where they found a test with severe chin-to-chest contact, NHTSA did
not experience severe chin-to-chest contact in its testing. NHTSA
believes this is feasible as most CRSs already have responses where
they consistently do not show severe chin-to-chest contact when using
the HIII-6YO in the current and updated standard seat assembly,
although we recognize that some CRSs may need redesigning to meet the
updated standard.
In addition, because replacement parts for the H2-6YO are no longer
available, the agency (as well as laboratories and industry) eventually
won't have the capability of testing with the H2-6YO, and therefore,
won't be able to make the annual assessment to ensure the products in
the market are compliant with FMVSS No. 213.
NHTSA believes it is time to move solely to the HIII-6YO dummy. We
explained in the 2020 NPRM that using up-to-date seat foam on the
proposed standard seat assembly would remove the test anomaly that had
prevented NHTSA from unreservedly adopting the HIII-6YO into FMVSS No.
213 in the past. The new foam will not collapse and bottom out like the
current standard seat assembly and will replicate the performance of
the foams in current passenger vehicles. It should be noted that the
bottoming out of the old foam happened only infrequently and was not
happening to an extent that prevented certification to the HIC
requirement. Manufacturers are currently certifying most CRSs to the
requirement using the HIII-6YO dummy (using the current standard seat
assembly with the softer cushion).\148\ The CRSs do not have a problem
meeting the standard with the HIII-6YO on the current seat with the
soft foam. This is not surprising as NHTSA adopted the HIII-6YO dummy
into FMVSS No. 213 twenty years ago (2003) and manufacturers have had
since 2003 to optimize their designs to meet child protection
requirements using the more advanced HIII-6YO child dummy. The new foam
enables use of the advanced dummy in FMVSS No. 213 testing without
having to change the dummy's design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\148\ NPRM, 85 FR at 69434, col. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA believes it is time for all CRSs to be assessed with the more
advanced HIII-6YO test dummy. The HIII-6YO is superior to the H2-6YO
child dummy and provides a better assessment of the protective
capabilities of a child restraint system than the H2 dummy. The HIII-
6YO dummy is more biofidelic than the H2-6YO dummy. The HIII-6YO has
been shown to have good kinematics replicating that of a human in slow
speed sled testing, exhibiting similar head and pelvis excursion as
human children.\149\ Testing CRSs on the updated standard seat assembly
in itself would yield dummy kinematics more representative of the
kinematics of restrained children in real world frontal crashes than
current tests, given the updated standard seat assembly is specially
designed to represent a current vehicle rear seat. Having the HIII-6YO
be a part of the test would amplify that realism and assessment. The
HIII-6YO also has extended instrumentation capability in many areas
over the H2 dummy, such as in the neck and chest. This capability will
be advantageous in the event a need should arise to more thoroughly
assess the risk of neck and chest injury to children in child
restraints. The HIII-6YO has been used in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant
crash protection,'' to assess the risk of head, neck and chest injury
to out-of-position children by vehicle air bags for decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\149\ Seacrist, T., et al., ``Kinematic Comparison of the Hybrid
III and Q-Series Pediatric ATDs to Pediatric Volunteers in Low-Speed
Frontal Crashes,'' 56th Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine,
October 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the HIII-6YO could particularly improve our assessment of CRS
performance in the critical safety area of head injury. NASS-CDS data
from 1995-2009 show that 39 percent of AIS 2+ injuries to restrained
children in frontal crashes are to the head and face, with 59 percent
of these injuries due to contact with the vehicle front seat and back
support.\150\ Mandatory use of the HIII-6YO in NHTSA's testing would
boost efforts to address the head injury problem. The HIII-6YO dummy
yields a more accurate depiction of the restrained child's head
excursion in a crash and would help better ensure CRSs are designed to
prevent head impacts in the real world. The softer, more biofidelic
neck of the HIII provides a better assessment of a child restraint's
performance in limiting head excursion than the H2. Design changes
needed to meet the head excursion limit when tested with the HIII-6YO
on the updated seat assembly would be warranted for child safety, as
using the HIII-6YO better replicates the kinematics of an actual child
than the H2-6YO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ In a study of 28 cases of children ages 0 to 15 who
sustained AIS 2+ head or face injuries in a frontal crash,
researchers found that the front row seat back and the B-pillar were
the most commonly contacted components. Arbogast, K.B., S. Wozniak,
Locey, C.M., Maltese, M.R., and Zonfrillo, M.R. (2012). Head impact
contact points for restrained child occupants. Traffic Injury
Prevention, 13(2):172-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is concerned that the optional use of the H2-6YO may take
advantage of the dummy's under-representation of head excursions. NHTSA
believes there is a benefit in testing with the HIII-6YO now that the
severe chin-to-chest contact has been addressed, as this dummy more
accurately represents the head excursion levels of children. The lead
time provided by this final rule will enable CRS designs to be
optimized, as necessary, for performance on the updated FMVSS No. 213
standard seat assembly.
Evenflo and JPMA believe that in NHTSA's tests supporting the NPRM,
CRSs tested without a tether were underrepresented and that more
testing should be done to confirm CRS performance would not be
negatively affected using the HIII-6YO dummy. Evenflo states that some
of the CRSs tested in the NPRM are no longer in the market.
In response, NHTSA disagrees with Evenflo and JPMA about the
representation of CRSs without tethers. The NPRM presented data of
seven forward-facing CRS models tested in

[[Page 84555]]

different installation configurations, including five tested using the
HIII-6YO and without a tether.\151\ While some of these models are no
longer in the market, that fact is not relevant to the issue at hand,
which is that CRSs on the market today are capable of meeting the
updated frontal standard with the HIII-6YO dummy and that is evidence
that it is practicable. NHTSA's data for the NPRM show only one
instance of a CRS not meeting the head excursion requirement, which
suggests that some CRSs may need to be reconfigured to meet the updated
standard. (The agency considers such a redesign as beneficial to
safety, as reduced head excursion would reduce the risk that a child in
the CRS would suffer a head injury in a crash.) NHTSA did further
testing after the NPRM to evaluate the repeatability and
reproducibility (R&R) of tests on the updated standard seat assembly
(supra). This R&R testing involved testing CRSs multiple times at three
different labs with different acceleration pulses. None of the testing
showed that there was severe chin-to-chest contact that would
contribute to a CRS's failure to meet FMVSS No. 213. In fact, all CRSs
tested met the HIC36 requirement. These data indicate that ending the
optional use of the H2-6YO dummy would not significantly affect the
manufacture of current CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\151\ Additional tests of more models and installation
configurations were done with other dummies as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco and Dorel also argue that their tests still showed increased
variability in their data due to chin-to-chest contact. Their data do
not accord with the data we obtained from an extensive R&R program
using three different labs. The agency's data indicate the updated
standard seat assembly and test procedures show good repeatability (see
section VI.d of this preamble). When analyzing for repeatability and
reproducibility, it is difficult to parse out different possible
factors that contribute to variability. Our R&R test series accounted
for factors beyond the effect the standard's test procedure and/or
standard seat assembly may have on test results. The test series also
accounted for elements such as: (1) the variability the test pulse
introduces (it is an independent variable that is not part of the
system (standard seat assembly, test procedure)); and (2) the
variability a CRS itself introduces, as there are some CRSs that are
less stable \152\ than others when positioned on the standard seat
assembly and there are production variabilities among CRSs themselves
that can affect the results. Even with those factors contributing to
total variability, results from our study showed good R&R. NHTSA's R&R
study provides confidence that this final rule's test is repeatable and
reproducible with the HIII-6YO dummy. In contrast, it is unknown how
closely Graco and Dorel followed the published NPRM test procedure, or
which specific test variations were controlled in their testing. The
commenters did not indicate (except for 1 test failure Graco pointed
out) that the tested CRSs had HIC scores above the standard's
performance thresholds or below, which is an issue that bears on the
overall context and significance of the test results. Their data does
not support a finding that using the HIII-6YO dummy would significantly
affect the manufacture of current CRSs. However, to the extent the
dummy drives design changes, these changes would be warranted for child
safety, as the HIII-6YO replicates the kinematics of an actual child
better than the H2-6YO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\152\ The Graco Affix has a very unstable base that causes
shifting and difficulty in positioning it consistently. While we did
not see any tests with high HIC36 caused by severe chin-to-chest
contact, NHTSA observed higher variability in this CRS. If Graco's
data are from this belt positioning booster seat, the movement of
the CRS may have contributed to the variability of results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco argued that its data show that the CV for HIC36 of this set
of tests exceeded 20 noting that any CV score greater than 10 is
generally considered to be a high-variance measurement system in need
of improvement. As discussed in section VI.d. Repeatability and
Reproducibility of Test Results, the assessment of repeatability based
on CV values was established to assess dummy R&R in qualification tests
of crash test dummies. It established CV values less than or equal to
10 percent as acceptable. However, we are applying the same analysis to
a much more complex test. Our analysis showed that most of our tests
had a CV value of less than 10 percent. On the tests where CV values
were above 10 percent, it was usually because the HIC values were low
(approximately under 500). Therefore, we believe values above 10
percent CV are acceptable. Those values must be put into context of the
full results.
NHTSA also disagrees with Graco's suggestion that manufacturers
should be provided an option for relief when a HIC36 score is above
1000 due to a chin-to-chest contact. First, chin-to-chest contact can
occur in real-world crashes and it is important that child restraint
systems control and mitigate the forces exerted on the child, even
forces imparted by the child's head hitting against themselves. We are
concerned that excluding HIC36 criteria under chin-to-chest contact
scenarios may inadvertently encourage CRS designs with significant
chin-to-chest contact. An allowance for manufacturers to ``exclude''
HIC36 evaluation when chin-to-chest contact occurs could also
unnecessarily complicate NHTSA enforcement actions, in that a
manufacturer may attribute any HIC over 1000 to chin-to-chest whether
the failure was caused by such impact or not.
Finally, as explained in the NPRM, NHTSA has decided to move away
from the H2-6YO dummy because replacement parts for the dummy are
becoming increasingly more difficult for the agency to procure.
Although NHTSA's crash test dummies are designed to be durable and
capable of withstanding crash testing without unreasonably breaking,
all test dummies need refurbishment and parts replacement from time to
time. As the H2-6YO is not a state-of-the-art dummy, it has become more
difficult for NHTSA to obtain replacement parts for the dummy. The
agency is concerned that as parts become harder to obtain, NHTSA's
inability to obtain parts will delay and impede its compliance test
programs when it must but cannot use the H2 dummy. Ending the optional
use of the H2-6YO dummy in compliance testing avoids that potential
problem and ensures that NHTSA will be able to assess the compliance of
CRSs using the HIII-6YO.
The agency has continued work to develop the Large Omnidirectional
Child (LODC) dummy. This dummy represents a 10-year-old child and is
designed with increased bio-fidelity, including a more segmented spine
which results in a more biofidelic thoracic motion. However, this dummy
is still under development and evaluation. Once a design of this dummy
is finished, the agency plans on scaling down the 10-year-old LODC to a
6YO dummy. The agency will then assess the biofidelic capabilities of
this future 6-year-old LODC against the HIII-6YO and H2-6YO dummies for
potential use in FMVSS No. 213. This work may take several years.
Adopting the HIII-6YO child dummy now in FMVSS No. 213 will immediately
improve the assessment of crash protection for older children.

e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII-3YO Dummy in CRSs Used Rear-Facing

This final rule adopts the proposed dummy leg positioning procedure
that calls for placing the dummy's legs up against the seat back and
removing the test dummy's knee joint stops. The

[[Page 84556]]

procedure will facilitate NHTSA's compliance testing of child
restraints that are recommended for use by children in the rear-facing
configuration. NHTSA recommends that children 1- to 3-years-old ride
rear-facing for as long as possible.\153\ When testing with the 3YO
dummy rear-facing, the dummy's legs oftentimes had to be crammed
against the updated standard seat assembly's seat back, which NHTSA
found problematic. The bracing interaction between the legs of the
dummy and the seat back would change the pre-test set recline angle of
the rear-facing CRS and the pre-test applied lap belt tension, meaning
that it was difficult to keep the recline angle and lap belt tension
within specifications in setting the conditions for the dynamic test.
To address this problem, the NPRM proposed a dummy leg positioning
procedure that calls for placing the dummy's legs up against the seat
back and removing the test dummy's knee joint stops to allow the leg to
extend at the knee in the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#find-the-right-car-seat-car-seat-recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, FMVSS No. 213 specifies use of the HIII-3YO child dummy
to test CRSs used rear-facing recommended for use by children in the 10
kg to 18.2 kg (22 to 40 lb) weight range. This final rule amends this
threshold such that the HIII-3YO child dummy is used only for testing
CRSs recommended for children with weights in the 30 to 40 lb range,
regardless if the CRS is in the forward-facing or rear-facing mode.
Notwithstanding this change, the dummy leg positioning procedure
continues to be relevant so that the standard is clear about how NHTSA
positions the dummy's legs when the CRSs are rear facing. Without the
procedure there will be uncertainty about this part of the test, with
some testers possibly cramming the dummy's legs against the updated
standard seat assembly's seat back.
The leg positioning procedure is based on data analyzing toddler
lower extremity postures when seated in CRSs rear-facing. NHTSA
initiated a research project conducted by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to identify toddlers' common
lower extremity postures.\154\ UMTRI evaluated 29 subjects ages 18- to
36-months in two CRS conditions (wide and narrow seat) used rear-
facing.\155\ UMTRI took anthropometry measures, surface scans and
coordinate measures to evaluate the toddler seating postures. UMTRI
found that the most common seating postures for toddlers in rear-facing
restraints are with the child's legs bent and ``relaxed'' with the
bottom part of the feet up against the seat back, and with the child's
legs spread and ``feet flat against each other.'' These seating
positions are not achievable by the HIII-3YO dummy due to the dummy's
limited hip range of motion. However, the children also frequently sat
with their legs bent and elevated against the vehicle seat back. The
HIII-3YO's legs are able to achieve this bent and elevated position.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposed to position the HIII-3YO's legs bent and
elevated in CRSs used rear-facing as shown by many of the children in
the UMTRI study. The procedure is already used by some commercial test
labs and CRS manufacturers to test CRSs used rear-facing for older
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\154\ ``Toddler Lower Extremity Posture in Child Restraint
Systems,'' March 2015, UMTRI-2014-8.
\155\ UMTRI also identified the children's common lower
extremity postures in forward-facing seats (long and short cushion).
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in the NPRM, as part of the study, UMTRI conducted
sled tests to compare the proposed positioning protocol to those used
by Transport Canada, various commercial test labs, and CRS
manufacturers. The study found no differences in CRS performance using
the various procedures.\156\ NHTSA found also that removing the HIII-
3YO knee joint and bending the legs at the knee were easy to do in the
lab and added little time to the testing process, unlike some of the
other procedures which were more laborious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\156\ ``Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for Dynamic Testing
of Rear Facing Restraint Systems Designed for Larger Toddlers.''
UMTRI-2014-12. March 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
Consumer Reports (CR), Volvo, Britax, JPMA and Evenflo commented on
this proposal, with CR and Volvo supportive and the other three
unsupportive. CR supported the removal of the knee stops for testing
with the HIII-3YO in rear-facing child restraints, noting they too
remove the knee stops and extend the legs against the back of the seat.
CR stated that the dummy's feet are not braced against the seat back
and that they found no issues with this methodology.\157\ Volvo
supported the modification of the knee joints of the dummy, stating
that this procedure will accommodate the use of the dummy in rearward-
facing CRS when the child restraint system is placed close to the seat
back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\157\ CR noted, however, that the leg position might prove more
challenging when testing higher-weight-capacity infant carriers
(recommended for children greater than 13.6 kg (30 pounds)), and
rear-facing convertibles that are installed flush against the seat
back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britax did not support the procedure because the commenter did not
view a dummy with the knee stops removed as biofidelic. Britax stated
that the reports cited in the NPRM supporting this procedure seemed
only to analyze repeatability and reproducibility of the summary
metrics and did not discuss how test dummy kinematics were affected by
the lower leg behavior. Britax stated the knee stop condition may, in
some current or future CRS designs, produce dummy-to-dummy or dummy-to-
CRS contact, and that it may be appropriate to have a procedure to
identify and discount such contact, such as, the commenter said, Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, section 215(1)(d). This
paragraph of CMVSS No. 213 excludes the head acceleration limit for any
acceleration caused by another part of the dummy striking its head.
Britax said that NHTSA should further investigate and understand how
factors such as lateral distance between the feet or dummy footwear can
be controlled to help provide a repeatable test method.
Evenflo recommended against the proposed procedure because, it was
concerned that the bending of the legs and removal of knee joints do
not comport with actual child positioning in a CRS. Evenflo preferred a
test method using more natural leg positioning, with limits in the
standard relating to interactions between the lower legs and parts of
the CRS. Evenflo believed that NHTSA and Transport Canada should
develop and use a single test method, as Evenflo believes that
Transport Canada's ``removal of dummy leg parts and unnatural
positioning create a similar lack of biofidelic integrity.'' JPMA
expressed its belief that NHTSA should specify how injuries that result
from contact between various parts of a dummy are evaluated. JPMA also
recommended specification of a time window in which injuries and other
metrics are evaluated.
Agency Response
NHTSA proposed the dummy leg positioning procedure to enable the
use of the dummy in FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test. The dummy is the best
available anthropomorphic test device that is representative of
children in the 30 to 40 lb range for whom the child restraint is
intended. There is a safety need to use the dummy to assess the
performance of CRSs in protecting this child occupant group. We realize
that removing the knee joint stops results in non-biofidelic knee set-
up, but FMVSS No. 213 is not evaluating leg injuries

[[Page 84557]]

and so the knees do not need to be biofidelic. If the legs do contact
the dummy as the legs are swung back towards the dummy's head, this
contact is inconsequential as the contact is soft (not injurious and
without a significant spike in the acceleration trace) and the
interaction happens after HIC36 and chest acceleration are measured. We
note that our testing did not show notable differences in the different
dummy setups on test results.\158\ Testing with an unaltered HIII-3YO
dummy is not an option as the bracing interaction between the legs of
the dummy and the seat usually changes the pre-test set recline angle
of the CRS used rear-facing and the pre-test applied lap belt tension.
This bracing interaction makes it difficult for the test set up to
remain in spec when running the compliance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ ``Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for Dynamic Testing
of Rear-facing Restraint Systems Designed for Larger Toddlers.''
UMTRI-2014-12. March 2015. Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0008 at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA will adopt the proposed positioning procedure because the
procedure will facilitate compliance testing of the CRSs to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 213. The procedure involves removing the
dummy's knee joint stops to allow the leg to bend freely at the knee.
Removing the knee joint stops results in a seating posture that
toddlers adopt in real life. While the legs might sometimes swing back
in a non-biofidelic manner, any contact of the legs with the head or
torso of the dummy does not affect the injury measures evaluated in
FMVSS No. 213. The benefits of testing CRSs rear-facing for older
children with the dummy outweighs the unconventional appearance of the
knee joints.
Britax and JPMA suggest that NHTSA adopt a procedure to identify
and discount leg to head contact. We do not agree with Britax's
suggestion to adopt the provision in CMVSS No. 213 215(1)(d), because
the foot to head contact experienced in rear-facing tests with the
HIII-3YO dummy is very soft and should not prevent HIC36 from being
evaluated. NHTSA also believes it would be very difficult to establish
objective means to identify and discount the effect the foot contacting
the head has on HIC36.
Evenflo commented that having CMVSS and FMVSS harmonized would help
the industry lower costs. The U.S. and Canada have historically
recognized the benefit of regulatory collaboration in connection with
motor vehicle safety, and NHTSA collaborates closely with Transport
Canada while developing changes to FMVSS No. 213. As discussed in the
NPRM, NHTSA reviewed the provisions in CMVSS No. 213 on this issue and
conducted tests using Transport Canada's procedure on testing with the
dummy. On this matter, the agency has decided that positioning the
HIII-3YO's legs as described in this final rule is the most appropriate
approach for FMVSS No. 213.

f. Test Procedure Issues Raised by Commenters

Tensioning Procedures for Seat Belts, Lower Anchor Webbing and Tethers
Evenflo comments that Section 12.D.6.3 of TP-213-10 specifies using
a belt-tension gauge to measure seat belt tension, and then to use a
load cell to take the final measurement. It states that the test labs
do not use a load cell and that the belt tension gauge often cannot be
used on LATCH belts because there is not enough space to fit the gauge.
Accordingly, the commenter recommends that a load cell be incorporated
into the LATCH anchors at a minimum. It notes that for the other
installations, a typical belt load cell is acceptable, but NHTSA should
specify the model of load cell to be used to ensure consistency among
the testing labs.
Graco states that proposed S6.1.2(d)(1)(ii) merely specifies the
range of acceptable tension values and directs that a load cell be used
without noting a location for the measurement. Graco believes the
tether routing on the proposed standard seat assembly does not reflect
actual vehicle geometry and materials, particularly the routing of the
tether across a steel box beam at the top of the seat back before
turning the strap more than 90 degrees to the anchor location, which,
Graco states, effectively creates two segments of the tether strap.
Graco recommends capturing pre-test tether tension values at the
approximate midpoint of the section of the tether between the top of
the seat back structure and the ``Tether Anchor Assembly.'' It states
that using this location has proven to result in more consistent
readings. Graco also believes that taking the measurement closer to
either end of this span results in higher tension values. It further
recommends that the appropriate zone in which to place the load cell
should be specified in S6.1.2(d). The commenter is concerned that the
tether tension may be different between the child restraint seat back
and the top of the proposed standard seat assembly, compared to the
tension in the segment between the top of the seat back and the tether
anchor. It explains that this in turn may result in pre-test under- or
overtightening of the tether, which can then lead to inconsistent
results for otherwise like-to-like tests. It asks if NHTSA has a study
or evidence that the tension in the tether strap between the child
restraint seat back and the top of the proposed standard seat assembly
is the same as the tension in the segment between the top of the seat
back and the tether anchor.
Graco adds that given that the text of S6.1.2(d)(1)(ii) is changing
to remove references to certain harness systems, an option should be
provided to use a means other than a load cell to capture pre-test belt
and tether tension. The commenter states that this would conform
S6.1.2(d)(1)(ii) with S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii), which states that, when
attaching a child restraint system to the tether anchorage and the
lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage system on the standard
seat assembly, NHTSA tightens all belt systems used to attach the
restraint to the standard seat assembly to a tension of not less than
53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell or other
suitable means used on the webbing portion of the belt. The commenter
notes that this suggested change also aligns with Section 12.D.1.2(3)
of TP-213-10, which states that seat belt webbing load cells monitor
belt preload during CRS installation. Graco adds that this item is not
required if an equivalent belt tension measurement device is utilized
to determine the preload on the Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assembly.
Britax commented that when a CRS is installed to the child
restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly, the current
rule specifies that the CRS belt systems are to be adjusted to a
tension of 53.5 to 67 N as measured on the webbing portion of the CRS
belt. However, Britax states that this procedure does not provide
specific guidance for installing a CRS equipped with a rigid lower
anchor attachment, which has no webbing. Britax requested the NHTSA
consider further guidance in the installation procedure for CRSs with
rigid lower anchor attachments.
Agency Response
In general, NHTSA agrees with describing the location and
instrumentation for the belt tension measurements but believes that
this level of detail would be more appropriate for inclusion in a
document such as the OVSC Compliance Test Procedure, which, as
previously stated, is a guidance document, and not a rule or
regulation. NHTSA will consider adding this information into the
updated Compliance Test Procedure as guidance. The advantage of
including the information in the Compliance Test

[[Page 84558]]

Procedure is that the guidance can be tailored to specific designs of
CRS, and the Compliance Test Procedure is also nimbler in terms of
updating. The proposed changes did not include the phrase ``as measured
by a load cell'' because the agency wants to give flexibility on how
the measurement will be made. While the three-pronged tension gauge is
being used now, a better method may arise in the future, and the device
can be updated in the Compliance Test Procedure at that time.
Evenflo suggests incorporating a load cell into the LATCH anchors
to measure the tension when the three-pronged tension gauge cannot be
used with the webbing. (The three-prong tension gauge attaches to free
webbing.) NHTSA declines to incorporate the suggested method. Although
NHTSA has used load cells in the LATCH anchors in the past, those load
cells were used for a different purpose and were rated for much higher
loads. Also, NHTSA does not know what variability different load cell
models would introduce into the system.
Rather than using a load cell or the three-prong tension gauge,
NHTSA is considering a different approach. NHTSA describes in its
Research Test Procedure a method it has used to ensure tightness of a
CRS to consistent levels when there is insufficient free webbing on
which to use the three-prong tension gauge. The method consists of
tightening the CRS so that it does not move more than 25 mm (1 inch) in
either fore/aft or lateral directions. NHTSA conducted a series of
tests with two CRS models comparing the three-pronged gauge to measure
the webbing tension and the 1-inch tightness method. Results showed
that the two methods had comparable, as well as repeatable, results
(Table 10 and Table 11).
NHTSA believes that the 1-inch tightness method is appropriate for
installing CRSs when the tension cannot be measured due to a lack of
free webbing. NHTSA will consider incorporating this method into its
Compliance Test Procedure. In addition, the agency is considering
incorporating this alternative tightness method into the regulatory
text of FMVSS No. 213 and No. 213b. NHTSA plans to propose
incorporating the method in the upcoming NPRM.

Table 10--Comparison of Test Results for Two Tightening Methods--Using HIII-6YO in a Forward-Facing Britax
Marathon Clicktight and Lower Anchor Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Test method Test No. HIC36 acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
(g) (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan 3 Prong Tension Gauge RR06-19-38............. 652 40.6 775 859
Method.
RR02-20-01............. 708 40.8 828 880
RR02-20-02............. 741 44.4 801 869
St. Dev................ 45.4 2.1 26.6 10.5
Average................ 700.3 41.9 801.2 869.4
CV%.................... 6.5 5.1 3.3 1.2
Calspan 1-inch Tightness RR06-20-35 *........... 671 43.1 773 834
Method.
RR06-20-36 *........... 595 41.7 794 846
RR06-20-37 *........... 708 44.0 794 851
St. Dev................ 57.4 1.1 11.8 9.1
Average................ 658.1 42.9 787.1 843.7
CV%.................... 8.7 2.7 1.5 1.1
All........................... St. Dev................ 51.7 1.6 20.0 16.6
Average................ 679.2 42.4 794.2 856.6
CV%.................... 7.6 3.8 2.5 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 11--Comparison of Test Results for Two Tensioning Methods--Using CRABI-12MO in a Chicco KeyFit Infant CRS
and Lower Anchor Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Test method Test No. HIC36 acceleration RF angle
(g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan 3-Prong Tension Gauge Method.. RR06-19-34..................... 380 43.9 52
RR06-20-27..................... 347 43.9 50
RR06-20-28..................... 378 44.4 50
St. Dev........................ 18.7 0.3 1.2
Average........................ 368.1 44.1 51.0
CV%............................ 5.1 0.7 2.3
Calspan 1-inch Tightness Method....... RR06-20-29 *................... 391 41.6 51
RR06-20-30 *................... 362 43.0 50
RR06-20-31 *................... 386 43.8 51
St. Dev........................ 15.2 1.1 0.5
Average........................ 379.7 42.8 51.1
CV%............................ 4.0 2.7 1.1
All................................... St. Dev........................ 16.5 1.0 0.8
Average........................ 373.9 43.4 51.0
CV%............................ 4.4 2.4 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For tether tension, NHTSA installed some CRSs and found cases where
the tether tension can be measured consistently on both the area
between the CRS and the tether webbing bend to the back of the updated
standard seat

[[Page 84559]]

assembly and between the tether anchorage and the top of the updated
standard seat assembly. We also found some models that prevent
measuring the tether tension between the CRS and the tether webbing
bend to the back of the updated standard seat assembly when the tether
is coming from a location lower on the CRS (lower in comparison with
other models), and then wrapping around the top of the updated standard
seat assembly. In view of these findings, NHTSA will consider including
measurement locations in its Compliance Test Procedure. In describing
measurement locations, NHTSA will seek to balance the need for
flexibility in where the measurement is taken with the desire to
provide guidance to NHTSA test laboratories.
In response to Britax's request for guidance on installing CRSs
with rigid lower anchorage attachments that have no webbing, NHTSA
reviewed the ECE R129 test procedure to evaluate whether updates to the
FMVSS No. 213 test procedure are warranted and whether NHTSA should use
the ECE R129 test procedure. The ECE R129 test procedure states that a
force of 135 15 N shall be applied in a plane parallel to
the surface of the standard seat assembly seat cushion. ECE R129 also
specifies that the force shall be applied along the center line of the
CRS and at a height of no more than 100 mm (3.93 inches) above the
standard seat assembly seat cushion. ECE R129 does not specify what
instrumentation and what size plate is used to apply the force on the
front of the CRS while installing it.
NHTSA conducted three installations of two CRS models with rigid
lower anchor attachments (Clek Ozzi and Maxi Cosi Rodifix) generally
following the ECE R129 procedure. We used two different methods for
applying the force (2 x 2 inches square plate (``small plate'') and 10
x 2 inches metal rectangle plate on force gauge ``large plate'') to
apply the forces in a repeatable and reproducible manner. As noted
above, ECE R129 does not have specifications for this aspect of the
procedure.
The study indicated that the ECE R129 test procedure does not
appear necessary or appropriate for FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA found that the
CRSs attached to the lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage
system with a force much lower than the 135 N force indicated in ECE
R129, which appears to show an absence of a need for a maximum force
specification. The agency is also concerned that applying a force such
as the one in ECE R129 may result in an installation that positions the
CRS too far into the seat back of the standard seat assembly when a
retractable rigid attachment is used. In addition, the difference
between the maximum forces between the two different models varied more
than 20 N, which suggests that each CRS model may have different
maximum installation forces based on design (see Table 12).

Table 12--Force Measurements During Rigid Lower Anchorage Attachment Installations on the FMVSS No. 213 Standard
Seat Assembly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clek ozzi Maxi cosi rodifix
Test No. ---------------------------------------------------------------
Small plate Large plate Small plate Large plate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 30.6 N 30.2 N 54 N 47.6 N
2............................................... 32.0 N 29.2 N 54.6 N 45 N
3............................................... 30.6 N 30.4 N 51.2 N 49.2 N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of these design differences, the installation of CRSs with
rigid lower anchorage attachments may vary markedly from model to
model. Some CRSs not only have rigid lower anchorage attachments but
have retracting or foldable rigid lower anchor attachments that may
require different installation steps. Currently, NHTSA attaches CRSs to
the lower anchors following the manufacturer's instructions, as some
installations may not only require a force to engage the attachments
but also to retract the rigid attachment until the CRS is in the
recommended position. The advantage of following the manufacturers'
instructions in this situation is the design flexibility provided by
this approach. As long as the CRS with rigid lower anchor attachments
meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 213 and No. 213b
(including S5.9(a) and S5.9(d)), manufacturers may use different
designs for the rigid attachments. This approach of following the
manufacturer's instructions about attaching a CRSs with rigid lower
anchor attachments to the lower anchors is working, so NHTSA does not
see a need to change this aspect of FMVSS No. 213 and No. 213b.
Evenflo commented that the dynamic test procedure does not
currently provide sufficient direction regarding the order of
operations for attaching and tensioning the tether strap, lower LATCH
anchors, and the vehicle belts. It argues that not having the order
specified introduces inconsistency into the test procedures used by
individual labs. It notes that it is very possible to have different
outcomes simply because the lab is, for example, completely tensioning
the tether before the auto belts or vice versa. Evenflo requests NHTSA
to address this ordering of operation in the final rule.
In response, NHTSA disagrees that the order of operations to
tension the belts should be specified in the standard. As each CRS is
different, it is sometimes necessary for NHTSA to recheck the tensions
to ensure they have not changed due to other steps in the procedure
(e.g., restraining the dummy in the CRS). NHTSA is evaluating the
merits of including a step in the NHTSA Compliance Test Procedure to
re-check webbing tensions after dummy installation.
Harness Tension
Several commenters had recommendations about the procedure NHTSA
should use for measuring the tension of the internal harness system
when preparing a child restraint for testing. Evenflo notes that
section 12.D.6.3 of TP-213-10 refers to using a webbing tension pull
device placed under each shoulder of the dummy and a waist strap to
apply a 9 N force to create a 7 mm (0.27 inch) gap (which correspond to
S6.1.2(d)(1-3) in current FMVSS No. 213). Evenflo states this is a
challenging, nearly impossible, procedure to execute correctly due to
factors such as the presence of shoulder harness or waist harness
covers and blockage created by the headrest. The commenter states that,
because of this difficulty, testing labs are instead using a variety of
alternative approaches, including a 2-finger method, a pinch test, or a
3-prong belt-tensioning gauge inserted on each shoulder strap between
the chest clip and crotch buckle. Evenflo recommends that the belt-

[[Page 84560]]

tensioning gauge method be added to TP-213 because it is measurable and
can be used consistently on any CRSs with any dummy. Evenflo adds that
at least one lab targets 4 pounds on the gauge and Evenflo recommends
this as well. Graco recommends that NHTSA adopt the pre-test harness
tension method using a 3-prong gauge similar to that used by described
in VRTC's Research Test Procedure. Graco states it conducted a
comparative study using the webbing tension pull device shown in FMVSS
No. 213 and a 3-prong gauge like that used by VRTC. The commenter
states that test data show use of the 3-prong gauge reduced the CV of
head and chest acceleration measures when compared to the current
webbing tension pull device. Graco states that the 3-prong gauge is
also easier to use when measuring harness tensions.
Agency Response
The current harness tension provision in FMVSS No. 213's test
procedures states that if appropriate, shoulder and pelvic belts that
directly restrain the dummy shall be adjusted as follows: Tighten the
belts until a 9 N force applied (as illustrated in figure 5) to the
webbing at the top of each dummy shoulder and to the pelvic webbing 50
mm on either side of the torso midsagittal plane pulls the webbing 7 mm
from the dummy. (S6.1.2(d)(1)(i))
During the research conducted for both the update to FMVSS No. 213
and establishment of FMVSS No. 213a, NHTSA used the 3-pronged gauge
method to measure tensions in the CRS internal harnesses and found the
method practicable and repeatable throughout its testing. NHTSA will
consider incorporating the 3-pronged gauge method into NHTSA's
Compliance Test Procedure. NHTSA also believes that the specification
of the instrumentation should be made in the Compliance Test Procedure
rather than in the regulatory text, as the Compliance Test Procedure
can be updated quickly and easily to effectuate any needed change in
procedure.
In this final rule, NHTSA is specifying the internal harness
tension as ``not less than 9 N but not more than 18 N,'' which is
consistent with FMVSS No. 213a.\159\ NHTSA is adopting this amendment
because the current regulatory text (``Tighten the belts until a 9 N
force applied . . . pulls the webbing 7 mm from the dummy'') is
cumbersome and unnecessary. An upper limit of 18 N, similar to that in
FMVSS No. 213a, better ensures consistency in testing. Having a tension
range is clearer for the standard and also follows the range format of
other tensions specified in the standard.
Correction of TP Figure
Evenflo notes that on Figure 6 on page 34 of the current TP-213-10
is inaccurate because it does not depict the standard's requirements
correctly. NHTSA agrees and has corrected the figure. S5.2.1.1(b)
relates to the width of a CRS seat back and provides that for some
CRSs, the width may be a specified dimension if the CRS has side
supports (side wings) ``extending at least 4 inches forward from the
padded surface of the portion of the restraint system provided for
support of the child's head.'' The side wing depth dimension should be
measured from the foremost point of the side wing to the level of the
seat back. However, the figure shows the measurement taken at the head
center of gravity (CG) plane (see figure below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.003

Although this comment pertains to a figure in the Compliance Test
Procedure that was not a direct subject of this rulemaking, the figure
is incorrect and can confuse readers. The agency has taken this
opportunity to correct the figure as a housekeeping measure. The
corrected figure will be included in the next version of the Compliance
Test Procedure to show the correct measurement. See corrected figure
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\159\ In the 2022 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213a, NHTSA
explained that an upper limit for tensioning internal harnesses was
specified to have consistency in testing. For the same reason, NHTSA
has included an upper limit to this internal harness tension.

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

[[Page 84561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.004

Weighted 6-Year-Old Dummy and Lap Shield
Dorel requests NHTSA to clarify the setup of the weighted HIII-6YO
dummy in a forward-facing installation (Section 3.3.1 of the TP) and a
belt-positioning booster installation (Section 3.3.2). Dorel asks
whether these sections were meant to apply not only to the HIII-6YO
dummy but also to the weighted HIII-6YO dummy, particularly in terms of
using a lap shield. Dorel points out that currently, there is nothing
in the standard or TP 213-10 that describes the installation of the lap
shield onto the weighted HIII-6YO dummy when used in the belt-
positioning seat mode, even though the lap shield is used with the
unweighted version of the dummy.
NHTSA agrees with Dorel that the lap shield should be used with the
weighted HIII-6YO. There is a gap between the pelvis and abdomen on the
HIII-6YO that a lap belt can get wedged into in a compliance test. The
lap shield is used to cover that gap. The lap shield should be used
with the weighted HIII-6YO dummy because outwardly the dummy is the
same as the unweighted HIII dummy and has the same gap. The lap shield
is needed to help ensure the lap belt of the Type 2 belt on the updated
standard seat assembly does not wedge into the gap in a compliance
test. This final rule will adopt changes to include the use of the lap
shield when using the weighted HIII-6YO dummy. The Compliance Test
Procedure will also be updated accordingly.
Installation Procedure for CRSs With Unused Support Legs
JPMA, Evenflo and Britax state that NHTSA should specify how unused
support legs should be adjusted or positioned during compliance testing
to further aid consistency efforts.
In response, NHTSA may not be able to provide a general
specification as to how it will position an unused support leg as
positioning the leg would depend on the design of the CRS itself. In
any event, NHTSA does not see a need to specify how it will position an
unused support leg. CRSs with support legs typically have a foldable
leg with or without a storage compartment. CRSs with support legs
provide instructions in their manuals on using the CRS without the
support leg, as sometimes the support leg might cause the CRS to be
angled (lifted) when the support leg is not compatible with the
vehicle. NHTSA reviewed 13 \160\ instructions of CRS models with
support legs and all of them provide instruction for ``folding the
support leg'' if the support leg cannot be used. For this reason, NHTSA
anticipates it will test these CRSs without the support leg by
following the instructions of the CRS manufacturer's printed
instructions for storing the leg. NHTSA encourages manufacturers to
include as much detail in their instructions necessary for a proper
installation of the CRS without the support leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ Mico XP Max (Maxi Cosi), Pipa Lite (Nuna), PIPA (Nuna),
Pipa Lite R (Nuna), Pipa Lite RX (Nuna), Primo Viaggio 435 Nido (Peg
Perego), Primo Viaggio 435 Lounge (Peg Perego), SafeMax (Evenflo),
Aton 2 (Cybex), Aton M (Cybex), Cloud Q (Cybex), Bugaboo Turtle
(Nuna) and Bugaboo Turtle One (Nuna).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chest Clip Location
Graco suggests NHTSA adopt specifications that focus on the
location of the chest clip (sometimes referred to as a ``retainer
clip''). The commenter states that most, if not all, manufacturers
follow the practice of directing caregivers to install the chest clip
at armpit level and that this is also the direction provided in the
2020 National Child Passenger Safety Technician Guide. Graco adds that
some manufacturers even indicate on their chest clips where the clip
should be aligned. Graco states that it typically measures the chest
clip location and has found that variation in chest clip placement up
or down the torso may have a correlation with injury and excursion
values in some circumstances. It also notes that for a crash test dummy
the ``armpit'' is not as well defined as on an infant or toddler,
which, Graco states, creates some ambiguity and room for
interpretation. Graco recommends that a method be established to ensure
greater precision of the chest clip placement.
NHTSA disagrees that more details on positioning the chest clip are
needed. NHTSA follows the manufacturer's instructions to position the
chest clip, when a chest clip is provided. The instructions usually
state ``to position the chest clip at arm pit level.'' This is the
instruction caregivers follow to use the CRS, so NHTSA's following the
instruction replicates a real-world condition. We believe the CRS's
performance should be assessed when installed in a reasonable manner,
including a range of chest clip positions that a caregiver could
reasonably understand to be the ``arm pit'' level. If CRS manufacturers
provide, in their instruction manuals, more details on where to place
the chest clip, NHTSA will follow these instructions.

[[Page 84562]]

Commenters did not provide data on how the chest clip placement
variation affects injury measures. While this clip placement may
introduce variation in injury assessment reference value results, CRS
manufacturers should ensure that their CRSs meet the standard when
positioned in any area that a caregiver may reasonably interpret as
``arm pit level.''
Photographs and Camera Angles
Graco commented that ``Pre-test photographs provide a crucial
analytical tool for diagnosing a child restraint's performance,
especially when reviewing anomalous test results.'' Graco states that
pre-test photographs ``can be used to assess the initial angle of the
[CRS], the angle and placement of the vehicle belt relative to the test
article, angle of the dummy head to its torso, placement of the
internal harness on the dummy's shoulders, etc.'' Graco recommends that
standardized locations for the camera lenses for both still photography
and high-speed video cameras be identified in TP-213, with all
locations specified in the three coordinates relative to fixed points
on the updated standard seat assembly, ``similar to what was done by
Calspan and VRTC in testing supporting this NPRM.'' Graco believes that
``This will resolve issues created by parallax differences between
images and afford reviewers the ability to more reliably use
photogrammetric analytical techniques.''
In response, NHTSA will consider referencing as best practices the
camera and photo locations in the agency's Compliance Test Procedures.
NPRM To Add a Dummy Head Drop Procedure
For purposes of calibrating test dummies for testing, NHTSA has
procedures in 49 CFR part 572, ``Anthropomorphic test devices,'' that
specify performance criteria for various parts of the dummy when
subjected to various tests. The CRABI-12MO dummy specifications \161\
include a front and rear head drop test.\162\ Graco asked if NHTSA
intended to update the HIII-3YO head drop calibration procedure in part
572 \163\ to include a rear head drop, or whether the current front-
only calibration method would be sufficient for both rear-facing and
front-facing dynamic tests with child restraint systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\161\ 49 CFR part 572, subpart R, sections 572.150-572.155.
\162\ 49 CFR 572.152.
\163\ 49 CFR part 572, subpart P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA agrees that there is merit to having a rear head drop test
for the HIII-3-year-old dummy. The agency has used the HIII-3YO dummy
in research supporting this final rule without a rear head drop
procedure and the dummy performed satisfactorily, providing repeatable
and reproducible results. However, NHTSA has tentatively determined
that a rear head drop test would be reasonable since incorporation of
the dummy leg positioning procedure discussed above will lead to more
regular use of the dummy in tests of CRSs used rear-facing. This issue
was not raised in the NPRM though, so NHTSA will not be including a
rear head drop test in this final rule. Instead, NHTSA's upcoming NPRM
would include a proposal to incorporate a rear head drop test for the
HIII-3YO dummy, together with proposed response values for calibrating
the response. The proposal is based on the CRABI-12MO dummy rear head
drop test procedure. NHTSA plans to move promptly on this upcoming
NPRM.
Procedures for 6YO Legs
Britax suggested NHTSA adopt procedures for positioning the HIII-
6YO child dummy rear facing. Britax commented that the rear-facing
positioning procedure for the HIII-3YO dummy adds clarity to FMVSS No.
213 for CRSs used rear-facing with weight limits up to 18.2 kg (40 lb).
The commenter stated that the standard does not provide the same
specificity for CRSs labeled for rear-facing use for children over 18.2
kg (40 lb). These child restraints are tested with the HIII-6YO child
dummy.
In response, NHTSA does not plan at this time to develop leg
positioning procedures for the HIII-6YO tested rear-facing, given the
agency's current priorities and demands on its rulemaking resources.
According to the 2019 National Survey of the use of Booster Seats \164\
there are virtually no children 18.6 to 27.2 kg (41 to 60 lb) in CRSs
used rear-facing, and there are only 0.2 percent of children 4- to 6-
years-old in CRSs used rear-facing. Thus, it appears that these CRSs
are not used rear-facing by children above 18.2 kg (40 lb). That being
said, the Safety Act requires manufacturers of restraints recommended
for children over 18.2 kg (40 lb) to certify their child restraints
meet all applicable FMVSS and are free of safety-related defects at
these higher occupant weights. Compliance of child restraints with
FMVSS No. 213 is assured by this requirement in the Safety Act that
manufacturers certify compliance for each child restraint. The agency
is able to review the basis for that certification and may conduct
testing, with the HIII-6YO in this instance, to assure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\164\ Enriquez, J. (2021, May). The 2019 national survey of the
use of booster seats (Report No. DOT HS 813 033). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. Link: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813033 [last
accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Table Summarizing Dummy Selection Criteria

For the convenience of readers, Table 13 below illustrates FMVSS
No. 213's dummy selection criteria as amended by this final rule as
discussed above.
As a practical matter, most CRS would be subject to testing using
at least two dummies since CRS are usually sold for children of weights
spanning more than one weight category. A CRS that is recommended for a
weight range that overlaps, in whole or in part, two or more of the
weight ranges is subject to testing with the dummies specified for each
of those ranges (571.213, S7). For example, a CRS that is recommended
for children weighing 5 to 35 pounds will be subject to tests with the
newborn, CRABI-12MO, and HIII-3YO dummies. This is also true for CRS
that are recommended for height ranges that overlap, in whole or in
part, two or more of the height ranges.

Table 13--Summary of This Final Rule's Decisions About Dummy Selection
Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS recommended for use by Are compliance tested by NHTSA with
children of these weights or these dummies (subparts refer to 49
heights-- CFR part 572)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight (W) <= 5 kg (11 lb), Newborn (subpart K).
Height (H) <= 650 mm (25.5
inches).
Weight 5 kg (11 lb) < W <= 10 kg Newborn (subpart K), CRABI-12MO
(22 lb), Height 650 mm (25.5 (subpart R).
inches) < H <= 750 mm (29.5
inches).

[[Page 84563]]

Weight 10 kg (22 lb) < W <= 13.6 CRABI-12MO (subpart R) (Tested only
kg (30 lb), Height 750 mm (29.5 rear-facing).
inches) < H <= 870 mm (34.3
inches).
Weight 13.6 kg (30 lb) < W <= HIII-3YO (subpart P).
18.2 kg (40 lb), Height 870 mm
(34.3 inches) < H <= 1100 mm
(43.3 inches).
Weight 18.2 kg (40 lb) < W <= HIII-6YO (subpart N).
22.7 kg (50 lb), Height 1100 mm
(43.3 inches) < H <= 1250 mm
(49.2 inches).
Weight 22.7 kg (50 lb) < W <= HIII-6YO (subpart N) and weighted
29.5 kg (65 lb), Height 1100 mm HIII-6YO (subpart S).
(43.3 inches) < H <= 1250 mm
(49.2 inches).
Weight greater than 29.5 kg (65 HIII-10YO (subpart T) *.
lb), Height greater than 1250 mm
(49.2 inches).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* HIC is not a pass/fail criterion when testing with the HIII-10YO
dummy.
(Note: CRSs with internal harnesses exceeding 29.5 kg (65 lb) with an
dummy are not tested with that dummy on the child restraint anchorage
system of the updated standard seat assembly.)

X. Add-On School Bus Child Restraint Systems

FMVSS No. 213 has provisions that provide for a type of add-on CRS
that is designed for exclusive use on school buses. The CRS is a
specially labeled ``harness,'' which the standard defines in S4 as ``a
combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists
primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar
material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure for the
child.'' \165\ FMVSS No. 213 has special accommodations for harnesses
manufactured exclusively for use on school bus seats because many
school districts and school bus operators need a product with a seat
back mount to transport preschoolers, children who need help sitting
upright, and children who need to be physically restrained because of
physical or behavioral needs.\166\ The seat back mount of the
specialized harnesses manufactured for use on school bus seats does not
use a seat belt to attach to the seat and thus can be used on large
school buses without seat belts, which comprise most large school
buses. The school bus harnesses are excluded from a general requirement
of FMVSS No. 213 that child restraints must be capable of meeting FMVSS
No. 213 when attached by a seat belt per S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A), Table 5
to S5.3.2 and Table 3 to S5.1.3.1(a) in FMVSS No. 213b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\165\ Harnesses must meet all applicable requirements of FMVSS
No. 213 but harnesses are excluded from several requirements, e.g.,
they are excluded from having to have attachments that connect to a
vehicle's child restraint anchorage system and from side impact
protection requirements.
\166\ 69 FR 10928, March 9, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has become aware of a CRS that is also designed exclusively
for school bus use. The CRS uses a seat back mount to attach to the
school bus seat without the use of a seat belt. However, because the
CRS is not a harness, it does not qualify as a school bus harness under
the wording of the standard and is not permitted under FMVSS No.
213.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\167\ NHTSA letter to IMMI, September 21, 2016: https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14-001678%20IMMI%20STAR%20crs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 213 to make the
standard's definition more design-neutral regarding CRSs that are
designed for exclusive use on school bus seats. To permit restraints
other than harnesses for exclusive school bus use, NHTSA proposed to
add a definition of ``school bus child restraint system'' in S4 of
FMVSS No. 213 that would define the term as a child restraint system
(including harnesses), sold for exclusive use on school bus seats, that
has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b) of FMVSS No. 213. CRSs without
the label in S5.3.1(b) cannot be certified as a school bus CRS. The
NPRM also proposed to amend several requirements in the standard to
apply them to school bus child restraint systems.
Discussion of Comments and Agency Responses
All commenters responding to this proposal supported the NPRM. The
National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT), Salem-Keizer
Public Schools (Salem-Keizer), IMMI, SRN, and SBS supported the
proposed addition of the ``school bus child restraint system'' to the
definition section of FMVSS No. 213, along with the performance
standards associated with this new child restraint system
classification. Salem-Keizer supported the proposal but suggested a
number of miscellaneous changes that were beyond the scope of the
rulemaking (some discussed below). IMMI states that the amendment
making child restraints for school bus use more design-neutral enables
manufacturers to continue development of new products that meet the
unique needs of school transportation.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\168\ In its comment, IMMI indicates that the amendment would
make address some confusion IMMI had in the past as to how products
other than harnesses could be produced for school bus use. IMMI
states that it had thought that NHTSA had found its school bus
product ``as an acceptable child restraint for school bus use'' and,
IMMI believed, had approved it under FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA would like
to address a few points to avoid any ongoing confusion. To be clear,
NHTSA determined in the past that the STAR is not a harness under
FMVSS No. 213 because the device did not meet the definition of
``harness'' in S4 of the standard. NHTSA would not have approved the
STAR for school bus use. NHTSA does not endorse or approve motor
vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SRN supported the proposal, noting that having a separate category
will also make it easier to establish when requirements apply to
certain types of restraints, e.g., child restraints in passenger
vehicles versus school buses. However, SRN and SBS state that child
safety restraint systems made for school bus use only are anchored to
bus seating by means of a cam wrap (described in the NPRM as ``seat
back mount or a seat back and seat pan mount attachment method''),
which makes them entirely inappropriate for use in other types of
vehicles. These commenters state that the products should be labeled
clearly for use on school buses only, given the difference in the kinds
of vehicle seats on school buses and passenger cars. SRN also suggested
improvements to the labeling requirements (some discussed below).
NHTSA has reviewed these comments and has determined that the
proposal should be adopted for the reasons stated in the NPRM. The
school bus child restraint systems are required to be labeled, as
proposed in the NPRM.
Some of the comments that were outside the scope of the rulemaking
are described below. Salem-Keizer requested a change to the word
``harness,'' as, it explained, ``harness''

[[Page 84564]]

promotes a negative connotation to parents when Salem-Keizer discusses
using a harness with their child. The commenter said it typically
refers to the restraints as a ``safety vest.'' Salem-Keizer also
suggested changing the term of ``Child Restraint System'' to ``Child
Safety Restraint System'' or ``Child Securement System'' for the same
reason. The commenter also suggested allowing school bus only infant
CRSs that would better enable infant restraints to fit in closely
spaced school bus seats. SRN urged NHTSA to review and update the
current warning label that would be placed on school bus child
restraint systems so that the label is more durable, conspicuous, and
easier to read. NHTSA appreciates these comments as suggestions for
possible future action.

XI. Corrections and Other Minor Amendments

This final rule makes the following corrections and minor
amendments to regulatory text. They were proposed in the NPRM except as
noted. NHTSA received no comments on the proposed amendments. The
corrections in (e) through (g) are simple technical corrections.

a. Corrected Reference

The agency amends S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) of FMVSS No. 213 by correcting a
reference to ``S5.5.2(l)(3)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii).'' The reference is
corrected to refer to ``S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C).''

b. Section 5.1.2.2, Section 5.4.1.1, and Figure 2

The agency is removing and reserving S5.1.2.2 because it applies to
CRSs manufactured before August 1, 2005, and so is no longer relevant.
The agency is removing and reserving S5.4.1.1 because it applies to
CRSs manufactured before September 2007, and so is no longer relevant.
The agency is removing Figure 2 because it applies to CRSs manufactured
before August 1, 2005 so is no longer relevant. The agency is renaming
Figure 2A in FMVSS No. 213 as Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 213b.

c. Table to S5.1.3.1(a) and Test Configuration II

The agency is correcting the table to S5.1.3.1(a), which specifies
performance criteria and test conditions for FMVSS No. 213's occupant
excursion requirements for add-on forward-facing CRSs. When NHTSA
created the table, the agency inadvertently did not include a reference
to Test Configuration II of FMVSS No. 213. This final rule corrects
this oversight.

d. Updating Reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1

Current specifications of the test device for built-in child
restraints in FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and
S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G)) require that instrumentation and data processing
be in conformance with SAE Recommended Practice J211 (June 1980),
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests.'' This final rule updates the
reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995).

e. Section S5.9(a)

The first sentence of S5.9(a) states: ``Each add-on child restraint
anchorage system manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, other than
a car bed, harness and belt-positioning seat, shall have components
permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be
securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 . . .'' (emphasis
added). It is clear from the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule
adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), that NHTSA was
referring to child restraint systems and not to child restraint
anchorage systems. (There are no ``add-on'' child restraint anchorage
systems and car beds, harnesses and belt-positioning seats are not
child restraint anchorage systems.) This final rule removes the word
``anchorage'' to correct this error.

f. Table for S5.3.2

Currently, the Table for S5.3.2 in FMVSS No. 213 shows the required
means of installation for different types of add-on child restraint
systems. The November 2, 2020 NPRM proposed amending the table to show
the incorporation of a Type 2 seat belt installation requirement, among
other things. This final rule makes a further change, a housekeeping
measure. The table currently shows one column for attachment to the
child restraint anchorage system without explicitly showing a provision
for tether use if needed, unlike the Type 1 seat belt installation
entry that has two columns (showing a Type 1 installation without the
tether, and a Type 1 installation with the tether, if needed). We are
formatting the Table for S5.3.2 so that it likewise has two similar
columns (showing an installation using the lower anchorages of a child
restraint anchorage system without the tether, and an installation with
the tether, if needed). These installations reflect the dynamic test
procedure in S6.1.2 for attachment with the child restraint anchorage
system, to show that the procedure involves attachments with and
without the tether. This formatting into two columns aligns the table
with FMVSS No. 213a, where the installation of the child restraint
system is segmented into installation with lower anchorage attachments
without the use of a tether, and installation with lower anchorage
attachments with the use of a tether, if needed. These changes to the
Table for S5.3.2 relate only to formatting and do not change any
current substantive requirement.

g. Tether Tension Range

Currently, FMVSS No. 213 indicates a tension for the tether as not
less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N (S6.1.2(d)(i) and (ii)), which
the NPRM had also proposed. During the tests with the updated standard
seat assembly, NHTSA found that in some cases the tethers could not be
tightened to the proposed tension range because the updated standard
seat assembly has a thinner seat back cushion (2 inches) than the
current FMVSS No. 213 seat. This final rule adopts a tension range of
not less than 45 N and not more than 53.5 N. This lower range in
tension values for the tether are based on tether tensions achieved in
the tests conducted at VRTC and therefore are practicable. FMVSS No.
213a for side impact protection, which has the same standard seat
design, adopted these new tension ranges for tether installations.

h. Clarifying FMVSS No. 213a and the 40 lb Cut Off

On June 30, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule \169\ adding FMVSS
No. 213a for CRS side impact protection. This new standard applies to
``add-on child restraint systems that are either recommended for use by
children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a height range that includes
heights up to 1100 millimeters regardless of weight, except for car
beds and harnesses.'' NHTSA believes some readers might ask whether
``up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' and ``up to 1100 millimeters'' are
meant to include 18 kilograms (40 pounds) and 1100 millimeters (43
inches). The answer is no, the ``up to'' term was not meant to include
either 18 kilograms (40 pounds) or 1100 millimeters (43 inches). To
make this clearer, the agency plans to clarify the wording of FMVSS No.
213a in the upcoming NPRM. The NPRM would propose to amend FMVSS No.
213a's ``up to'' language to instead state: ``less than 18 kilograms
(40 pounds)''

[[Page 84565]]

and ``less than 1100 millimeters (43 inches)'' so that it is clear that
the 18 kg (40 lb) and 1100 mm (43 inches) values are not included in
the applicability.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\169\ 87 FR 39234.
\170\ This change would reflect NHTSA's original intent, as
shown in several instances in the June 2022 final rule. See, e.g.,
87 FR at 39244, col. 2 (``NHTSA also explained in the NPRM that the
FMVSS No. 213a side impact test replicates a near-side crash as
experienced by a child under 18.1 kg (40 lb) in a safety seat''); 87
FR 39244, col.3. (``No commenter objected to NHTSA's requiring
manufacturers of booster seats to limit use of boosters to children
weighing at least 18.1 kg (40 lb).'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Beyond the Scope of the Rulemaking

There were many comments on matters beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. NHTSA has discussed a number of these in various parts of
this preamble and has noted that the agency is not addressing the
matters further in this final rule. The agency will consider the
comments as ideas for potential future changes to FMVSS No. 213 and
NHTSA child passenger safety programs. In this section, we list some
other matters that were raised by commenters, and for some, we offer
our observations on the topic. This list is not all-inclusive of the
comments that were out of scope of this rulemaking, or the thoughts
commenters had on how NHTSA should proceed on various topics.

Retractor

Volvo comments that, when assessing belt-positioning (booster) seat
performance, it is important to simulate the function of the vehicle
belt retractor in a realistic way. Volvo believes that the operation of
the belt retractor is especially important when assessing the belt-
positioning seat's dynamic performance in a crash. Volvo states that
the slack (film-spool effect) introduced by the retractor is not
present with the fixed attachment that is used in the FMVSS No. 213
current standard seat assembly today. Volvo stated that UMTRI has
developed a surrogate retractor and performed a test using the FMVSS
No. 213 standard seat assembly and that the test results showed similar
kinematics to those achieved with a production seat belt.\171\ Volvo
added that, UMTRI \172\ used the surrogate retractor in a comparative
study of belt-positioning seats and concluded that tests with the
surrogate retractor were as repeatable as the tests performed with
current FMVSS No. 213 conditions. Volvo encouraged NHTSA to include a
vehicle retractor function in the FMVSS No. 213 updated standard seat
assembly and that this would better represent vehicle crash tests when
using the standard seat assembly. SRN also urged NHTSA to consider
using a shoulder belt that replicates the spooling effect of a real
vehicle seat belt (such as the surrogate belt developed by UMTRI),\173\
rather than a fixed belt, to better represent a real crash when
performing a FMVSS No. 213 dynamic sled test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\171\ Manary MA, Klinich K, Boyle K, Orton N, Eby B, Weir Q.
Development of a surrogate shoulder belt retractor for sled testing
of booster seats, DOT HS 812 660, NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2019a.
Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812660_development-surrogate-shoulder-belt-retractor-for-sled-testing-of-booster-seats.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\172\ Klinich KD; Jones MH, Manary MA, Ebert SH, Boyle KJ, Malik
L, Orton NR, Reed MP. Investigation of potential design and
performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and dynamic
testing. DOT HS 812 919. NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2020 Link:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July 26,
2023].
\173\ Klinich KD; Jones MH, Manary MA, Ebert SH, Boyle KJ, Malik
L, Orton NR, Reed MP. Investigation of potential design and
performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and dynamic
testing. DOT HS 812 919. NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2020 Link:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July 26,
2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

While including a retractor in FMVSS No. 213 to test belt-
positioning seats is out of scope of this rulemaking, NHTSA notes here
that the agency has been highly interested in including a retractor in
the regulation. In fact, NHTSA has funded the research
^{174 175} to which the commenters refer (Volvo and SRN), to
develop a surrogate seat belt retractor to achieve a more realistic
shoulder belt performance compared to the static (fixed) shoulder belt
currently used in FMVSS No. 213. If assessments show the surrogate
retractor is suitable for incorporation into NHTSA compliance tests,
NHTSA plans to propose adopting it into FMVSS No. 213
^{176 177} in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\174\ Manary, M.A., Klinich, K.D., Boyle, K.J., Orton, N.R.,
Eby, B., & Weir, Q. (2016, January) Development of a Surrogate
Shoulder Belt Retractor for Sled Testing (Report No. UMTRI-2016-21).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812660_development-surrogate-shoulder-belt-retractor-for-sled-testing-of-booster-seats.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\175\ Klinich KD; Jones MH, Manary MA, Ebert SH, Boyle KJ, Malik
L, Orton NR, Reed MP. Investigation of potential design and
performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and dynamic
testing. DOT HS 812 919. NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2020 Link:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July 26,
2023].
\176\ NHTSA has published preliminary drawings of the surrogate
retractor which can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0055-0017.
\177\ NHTSA tests using the surrogate retractor can be found in
NHTSA's Research Vehicle Test Database at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/research-testing-databases#/vehicle. Test numbers
V10063 through V10064 and V10325 through V10339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Height-Less Devices

Volvo commented that belt-positioning products should not be
categorized as belt-positioning (booster) seats or used as child
restraints in cars unless they elevate the child and shorten the seat
cushion length, better ensuring the child is in an optimal position in
a crash and is not slouching. Volvo stated that due to limitations
inherent to the standard's seat assembly (replicating the vehicle
environment and limitations in dummy sensitivity), some of these
devices have passed FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements even
though they do not elevate the child or shorten the seat cushion length
while seated. Volvo states: `` `Foldable devices' that do not boost,
but have passed FMVSS 213 certification, resulted in submarining \178\
when in vehicle crash tests (Tylko et al., 2016).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\178\ Submarining occurs when the pelvis of the occupant slides
below the lap belt allowing it to load the abdomen, potentially
resulting in internal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volvo states that a common concern for ``height-less booster''
types of devices is that they interfere with the seat belt function and
do not reposition the child into the seat belt like booster seats do.
Volvo states that when used in a crash, height-less devices will
straighten the seat belt out between the seat belt anchorage points,
resulting in seat belt slack that will influence the kinematics of the
child in a crash. If the rerouting is extensive, slack will be
introduced as the belt is straightened out, resulting in delayed
coupling of the child to the seat belt. The commenter believes that
these height-less devices place the lap belt further forward on the
thighs, with no direct contact with the pelvis, and that this placement
will result in delayed restraint of the pelvis leading to poor
kinematics and increased loadings on the child. Volvo is also concerned
that a height-less device can result in the child not being restrained
over the strong parts of the body, since the child is not raised to the
correct position.
Volvo believes height-less devices do not adhere to the protection
principles of a CRS and are not booster seats or CRSs. The commenter
states that ECE R129 addresses the height of the booster by requiring a
certain angle of the lap belt and specifying that the lap belt must
pass over the top of the thigh, just touching the fold with the pelvis.
Volvo suggests that NHTSA add requirements addressing the shortcomings
of heigh-less devices, including requirements for

[[Page 84566]]

lap belt positioning (that the device must result in the lap belt
positioned on top of the thigh and in contact with the pelvis) and for
enabling the child to bend their legs (to avoid being out of position
in a crash by slouching).
Similarly, CHOP comments that the primary role of a belt-
positioning booster seat is to adapt the vehicle seating geometry and
restraints, which are designed for adults, to the child. CHOP explained
that the nature of a booster seat, which raises the child, is intended
to account for both anthropometry and biomechanical differences between
children and adults. CHOP states that the boost provided by the
structure of the traditional belt-positioning seats is needed for seat
belt fit reasons but also to avoid slouching, allowing children to bend
their legs over the front edge of the belt-positioning seat. CHOP
states that its research using the PIPER \179\ pediatric human body
model illustrates important differences in kinematics between optimally
positioned occupants and those positioned in more naturalistic and
realistic postures.^{180 181} CHOP states it is important to
assess, using pediatric human volunteers, how these novel designs
influence child posture and not limit assessment only to dummy
evaluation in sled/crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\179\ The PIPER Child model is a finite element model was
developed to scale the model for children between at least 1.5 and 6
years of age. It was created as part of the Piper Project Link:
http://piper-project.org/about (last accessed March 21, 2023).
\180\ Maheshwari J, Sarfare S, Falciani C, Belwadi A. Analysis
of Kinematic Response of Pediatric Occupants Seated in Naturalistic
Positions in Simulated Frontal Small Offset Impacts: With and
Without Automatic Emergency Braking. Stapp Car Crash J. 2020
Nov;64:31-59. PMID: 3363600. Link to request access: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2499437312?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\181\ Maheshwari J, Sarfare S, Falciani C, Belwadi A. Pediatric
occupant human body model kinematic and kinetic response variation
to changes in seating posture in simulated frontal impacts--with and
without automatic emergency braking. Traffic Inj Prev. 2020 Oct
23:1-5. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2020.1825699. Epub ahead of print.
PMID: 33095067. Link to request access from authors: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344843077_ [last accessed July 26,
2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHOP states that its preliminary work examining the performance of
height-less devices revealed important differences between static belt
fit and dynamic belt performance. CHOP noted that height-less devices
route the belt away from the soft abdomen and the neck similar to
traditional belt-positioning seats but do so without the ``boost'' in
an effort to reduce the size and mass of the product and increase the
convenience of the restraint. CHOP explains that both sled tests and
computational modeling using the PIPER human body model demonstrated
delayed contact between the lap belt and the pelvis due to the fact
that the lap belt is positioned far forward on the thighs.\182\ CHOP
states that by using kinematic rather than kinetic metrics to assess
submarining, such as change in torso angle (which is the angle made by
shoulder to hip to knee), this research identified differences between
the height-less devices and traditional belt-positioning seats that may
indicate a potential for suboptimal kinematics that current dummies and
FMVSS No. 213 test modes may not be able to reproduce. CHOP believes
future research should further develop evaluation metrics that can
accurately predict how real children sustain injuries--using advanced
technology such as computational human body models ``to generate an
environment where innovation is encouraged but unintended consequences
are avoided.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\182\ Belwadi et al, ``Efficiency of booster seat design on the
response of the Q6 ATD in stimulated frontal sled impacts''
Protection of Children in Cars Conference, Munich, Germany, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

While additional requirements for height-less devices and belt-
positioning seats are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, NHTSA
appreciates the commenters' views. The agency believes a booster seat's
effectiveness comes from, in part, its ability to elevate a child in a
vehicle relative to a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt to achieve proper
belt fit. NHTSA has sponsored a research program \183\ as a first step
toward possibly determining a minimum boosting height for CRSs
recommended for children weighing more than 18.2 kg (40 lb). The
program is evaluating, among other things, the need to specify a
minimum boosting height that would provide enough lift to position the
child to achieve a beneficial seat belt fit and allow bending of the
knees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\183\ Klinich, K.D., Jones, M.H., Manary, M.A., Ebert, S.H.,
Boyle, K.J., Malik, L., Reed, M.P. (2020, April). Investigation of
potential design and performance criteria for booster seats through
volunteer and dynamic testing (Report No. DOT HS 812 919).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July
26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A booster seat is a platform used to elevate a child in a
vehicle.\184\ A belt-positioning seat (which is considered a booster
seat in FMVSS No. 213) raises the child above the vehicle seat to
better position the seat belts on the child's torso.\185\ In the past,
NHTSA determined that devices that simply reposition vehicle belts for
children, and not reposition the child to fit the belts, are not child
restraint systems. In addition, NHTSA has also determined that a
product that provides a seating surface for a child meets the
definition of a CRS in FMVSS No. 213, but not the definition of a
booster seat if it does not position a child to improve belt fit.\186\
NHTSA considers the ability of a booster seat to elevate or lift the
child to be crucial to occupant protection in side as well as frontal
crashes. Lifting the child enables the child to fit the belts and
attain the benefits of the belt, stay in-position in a crash as opposed
to slouched, and positioned to benefit from other safety systems in the
vehicle, such as side curtain air bags installed to meet FMVSS No. 214
(``Side impact protection'') and No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.''
NHTSA considers the boosting ability of a booster seat key to
protecting children in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\184\ 51 FR 5335, 5337 (February 13, 1986). ``Booster seats are
designed to be used by older children who have outgrown child seats.
By elevating these children, the- booster seat allows the child to
see out of the vehicle and to use the belt system in the vehicle.''
Id.
\185\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/06-007784as (Hip
Hugger).
\186\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/14129ar2jan
(Safesit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's research program is therefore also studying the need to
specify a minimum booster seat height so that children are positioned
high enough to benefit from a vehicle's side curtain air bags. In
NHTSA's June 30, 2022, final rule establishing side impact requirements
for child restraint systems,\187\ NHTSA determined that ``When children
outgrow their safety seats, they transition to a booster seat, which on
average raises a seated child by 82 mm (3.22 inches), which would
position the child high enough to benefit from the vehicle's side
curtain air bags installed to meet Standards No. 214 and 226.'' NHTSA
is studying all the above issues in the research program. Among other
issues, the agency is considering the possibility of a rulemaking to
specify a minimum boosting height in FMVSS No. 213 and No. 213b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\187\ Footnote omitted. 87 FR at 39237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simulated Front Seat Back Interaction

A few commenters suggested adding a front seat forward of the
standard seat assembly. Consumer Reports (CR) argues that data indicate
that head contact is a primary source of injury, and therefore NHTSA
should represent a front seat back to represent the rear seat
environment more accurately. Similarly, SRN and SBS suggest that

[[Page 84567]]

NHTSA consider adding a front seat structure in a future rulemaking.

Agency Response

We appreciate the information provided in the comments but note
that we are not considering rulemaking in this area. Adopting a
simulated front seat back into the FMVSS No. 213 frontal test is out of
scope of this rulemaking.
We also note that NHTSA is conducting research to address the
characteristics of the seat back, head restraints and B-pillar in
vehicles ^{188 189} to help reduce head injuries in adults and
children. This research aims to develop a repeatable testing method to
assess the injury potential from head contact on seat backs and lower
B-pillars. Different head forms, locations (seat backs and b-pillar),
test speeds (15 mph and 20 mph) and potential countermeasures are being
explored. This research will provide more insights into the head to
seat back/B-pillar impacts that may help NHTSA isolate the different
injury mechanisms contributing to child head injuries against the seat
backs and B-pillars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\188\ Louden, A., Wietholter, K., Duffy, S.J. ``Lower Interior
Impacts to Seat Backs and B-Pillars'' SAE Government Industry
Meeting (2017) Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/sae2017alouden.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\189\ Wietholter, K. (2022, July). Development of test
procedures for lower interior rear seat occupant protection (Report
No. DOT HS 813 319). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/62933 [last accessed May
22, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Include Interpretations in FMVSS No. 213

JPMA and Evenflo encouraged NHTSA to incorporate past
interpretations into the standard or into TP-213 as appropriate. In
response, NHTSA does not believe it is necessary to incorporate
interpretations as a general matter because the interpretations are
available on the agency's website and are searchable. Moreover, NHTSA
declines to incorporate the interpretations in this final rule because
extending the rulemaking to incorporate them would lengthen the time to
draft this final rule and increase the volume of the rule's subject
matter. Nonetheless, NHTSA appreciates the suggestion and will consider
the matter for a possible future action.

Adopting Side Impact Protection

A number of entities (SBS, AAP, CR, the People's Republic of China,
Dorel, and CHOP) commented on NHTSA's development of an FMVSS for side
impact protection requirements for child restraint systems. The side
impact final rule, published on June 30, 2022 (87 FR 39234), adopted a
side impact standard seat assembly that is harmonized with the frontal
updated standard seat assembly adopted by this final rule.\190\ NHTSA
finalized the side impact standard seat assembly after considering the
comments it received on the 2020 NPRM proposing this frontal updated
standard seat assembly. Other side impact issues brought up by the
commenters have been addressed in the side impact rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\190\ Some differences exist between the standard seat
assemblies due to the nature of the test. For example, the seat belt
and the child restraint anchorage system anchorages are centered in
the frontal seat assembly, and aligned 300 mm from the edge of the
seat in the side impact seat assembly. The design of the lower
anchorages are different but their locations are the same, and some
structural reinforcements are different between the standard seat
assemblies due to the different loading conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Misuse Testing

Mr. Jankowiak commented that if ``real world'' use includes the
unintentional misuse of CRSs, FMVSS No. 213 should then encompass this
in the compliance testing, if feasible. Mr. Jankowiak explained that
because a not insignificant number of CRSs are unintentionally misused
or improperly installed, to reflect ``real-world use'' the tests should
include misuse and/or improperly installed CRSs, if feasible.
In response, NHTSA agrees, and FMVSS No. 213 currently includes
misuse tests given the degree of misuse in the field. An example is the
32-inch head excursion requirement that CRSs must meet without use of a
tether. NHTSA adopted the test based on data showing that most
caregivers were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints.
Later, NHTSA adopted another head excursion test, to supplement the 32-
inch test requirement. The supplemental test is a correct use test. It
requires child restraints to meet a 28-inch head excursion requirement
and in that test, NHTSA will attach a top tether if the child restraint
includes one and its written instructions direct consumers to use it.
In addition, FMVSS No. 213 includes a number of requirements to
reduce the likelihood of misuse during real-world use. For example,
NHTSA has standardized the means of anchoring a child restraint to a
vehicle, stating that ``standardization of the means of anchoring a
child restraint to a vehicle is vital to prevent misuse. By requiring
all restraints to be attachable to vehicle seats by the vehicle seat
belt, consumers will be assured of a uniform method of attaching the
restraint and there will be less confusion regarding that aspect of
use.'' \191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\191\ NPRM, 43 FR 21470, 21472; May 18, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Miscellaneous Issues

NHTSA also received comments asking that the agency: take action on
fake and counterfeit products in the U.S. market; conduct research to
gather more current feedback from parents and child passenger safety
technicians on trends and patterns regarding common CRS misuse; ensure
that mass media images are screened for technical accuracy; support
increased education, public communications, and enforcement efforts
regarding the importance of belt-positioning seat use for children
through age 12. While such comments are out of scope of the rulemaking,
NHTSA appreciates the information provided.

XIII. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising From Research Findings

In the NPRM, NHTSA requested comment on several developments in
child passenger safety observed in the research context that have
raised the agency's concerns. NHTSA requested comments on how best to
approach those developments.\192\ In this section, we discuss the
comments we received and offer some of our current thinking on the
topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\192\ When NHTSA published the NPRM, the agency docketed a paper
in the NPRM docket (Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093) that discussed the
issues in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. CRSs Associated With Submarining or Ejection

NHTSA states in the NPRM that the agency has reviewed research
reports on testing done on certain kinds of child restraints that raise
concerns about a potential unreasonable risk of submarining \193\ or
ejection from the devices in crash scenarios. The CRSs in question are
(a) inflatable booster seats, and (b) ``shield-type'' child restraints
(shield-only-CRSs) available in markets overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\193\ ``Submarining'' refers to the tendency for a restrained
occupant to slide forward feet first under the lap belt during a
vehicle crash, which could result in serious abdominal, pelvic, and
spinal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inflatable Booster Seats
The NPRM explains that Transport Canada conducted 25-30 mph frontal
impact crash tests of different vehicle models, with the HIII-6YO and
HIII-10YO dummies restrained using inflatable boosters in rear seats.
In the tests, the dummies experienced significant submarining due to
excessive compression of the inflatable booster

[[Page 84568]]

during the crash event. Submarining refers to when the dummy's pelvis
slides under the lap belt and the lap belt directly loads the abdomen.
Submarining is a serious safety risk because the lap belt will directly
load the occupant's vulnerable soft organs in the abdomen rather than
stay on the strong bones of the pelvis where crash forces can be
tolerated better. Booster seats sold in Canada are required to compress
by not more than 25 mm (1 inch) when subjected to a 2,250 N quasi-
static compression force. Inflatable booster seats cannot currently
meet and are unlikely to meet the requirements of this quasi-static
compression test and so inflatable booster seats are not sold in
Canada. The NPRM requested comment on the findings of the research
crash tests conducted in Canada, the booster seat compression test
requirements in Canada, and the safety need to have a compression test
in FMVSS No. 213.
Comments Received
Various commenters responded to this issue of a compression test
for belt-positioning seats. (A belt-positioning seat is a type of
booster seat.) The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) commended NHTSA for
taking a proactive approach for these CRSs. SBS commented that it has
limited experience with inflatable boosters ``and it was not very
positive.'' SBS states that it found that inflatable belt-positioning
seats led to poor belt fit and poor positioning of the child,
``including children slipping off the seat in normal driving.'' CR
states it has not seen submarining with inflatable belt-positioning
seats in its 35 g/35 mph testing.
Volvo commented in support of a compression test. It states that
the dynamic stability of a booster seat is essential as this will
influence its performance in a real-world crash. The commenter explains
that it compared three different types of backless booster seats having
varied degrees of stiffness and design using a human body model \194\
and a dummy \195\ in a vehicle environment.\196\ It states that,
although there were similarities in initial belt fit, there were
alarming differences in dynamic performance. Specifically, Volvo states
that one of the booster seats deformed substantially and this in turn
caused unfavorable kinematics and seat belt interaction. Volvo believes
that the Transport Canada tests on inflatable boosters referenced in
the NPRM \197\ that found submarining ``highlights the importance of a
stable dynamic booster seat design.'' Volvo emphasizes that the
Transport Canada tests were performed in vehicles ``which indicates
that the consequences of excessive deformation of the booster is not
recognized in the standard seat assembly to the same extent.'' It
states that, given the differences in the standard seat assembly and
vehicle environment and the limitations of the current test dummies and
performance criteria to detect submarining and the risk of abdominal
injury, Volvo supports the introduction of a quasi-static compression
test requirement. The commenter cautioned though, that the test should
be written so that the belt-positioning seat would not be sub-optimized
for one specific position of the pressure plate. Volvo states it is
especially important that ``the booster seat does not deform
excessively on the front edge of the booster as this is the most
critical area'' to prevent submarining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\194\ Modeling efforts included 18 frontal impact simulations
with the finite element PIPER 6-year-old human body model (HBM)
investigating different combinations of parameters (booster shape,
stiffness, and guiding loop design).
\195\ Testing efforts include 3 frontal impact sled tests with a
Q10 dummy using vehicle rear seat interiors.
\196\ Bohman K, [Ouml]sth J, Jakobsson L, Stockman I,
Wimmerstedt M, Wallin H. Booster cushion design effects on child
occupant kinematics and loading assessed using the PIPER 6-year-old
HBM and the Q10 ATD in frontal impacts, Traffic Inj Prev 20, Aug
2020;1-6 Link for paid access: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389588.2020.1795148 [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\197\ Tylko et al., 2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BubbleBum, a manufacturer of inflatable belt-positioning seats sold
in the U.S., commented against having a compression test in FMVSS No.
213. The manufacturer states that the experimental data from Transport
Canada \198\ shows that submarining occurs in some but not all tests
with inflatable belt-positioning seats. BubbleBum states that Transport
Canada 2012 \199\ test data of 42 full scale rigid barrier frontal
vehicle crash tests shows that submarining also occurs in 31 percent of
conventional,\200\ non-inflatable, belt-positioning seats. BubbleBum
states that Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) ^{201 202}
found that the vast majority of conventional and rigid belt-positioning
seats TRL tested exhibited unfavorable kinematics, indicating
submarining, in a series of 12 sled tests with 6- and 10-year-old
dummies on the seats over a range of different lap belt paths.
BubbleBum argues that field observations of conventional belt-
positioning seats show that they are extremely effective in mitigating
injury as shown in a 2009 Children's Hospital of Philadelphia study
\203\ that found children aged 4 to 8 years restrained in belt-
positioning seats were 45 percent less likely to sustain injuries than
similarly aged children who were using the vehicle seat belt alone. The
commenter states that the study also shows that, for backless belt-
positioning seats, there was a complete absence of abdominal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\198\ Referenced in the NPRM and docketed NHTSA-2020-0093-0013
at www.regulations.gov.
\199\ Tylko, S. and Bussieres, A. ``Responses of the Hybrid III
5th Female and 10-year-old ATD Seated in the Rear Seats of Passenger
Vehicles in Frontal Crash Tests'' IRCOBI Conference 2012 http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc12/pdf_files/65.pdf [last
accessed July 26, 2023].
\200\ By conventional belt-positioning seats, NHTSA means belt-
positioning seats that have a more rigid seating platform and that
are non-inflatable.
\201\ TRL is an accredited Technical Service in the United
Kingdom for the type[hyphen]approval of child restraint systems to
UN Regulation No. 129.
\202\ Visvikis, C. Carrol, J. Pitcher, M. and Waagmeester, K.
``Assessing Lap Belt Path and Submarining Risk in Booster Seats:
Abdominal Pressure Twin Sensors vs. Anterior-superior Iliac Spine
Load Cells.'' IRCOBI Conference 2018. http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc18/pdf-files/92.pdf [last accessed July 26,
2023].
\203\ Arbogast KB, Jermakian JS, Kallan MJ, Durbin DR.
Effectiveness of belt-positioning booster seats: an updated
assessment. Pediatrics. 2009 Nov;124(5):1281-6. doi: 10.1542/
peds.2009-0908. Epub 2009 Oct 19. PMID: 19841126. Link for access:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/124/5/1281/72162/Effectiveness-of-Belt-Positioning-Booster-Seats-An?redirectedFrom= fulltext [last accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BubbleBum argues that all the findings presented indicate that the
experimental observations of belt-positioning seat performance predict
there should be substantial abdominal injury in the field, yet such
injuries are not observed in the field. The commenter further states
that it has conducted extensive crash testing on regulatory standard
seat assemblies and real vehicle seats and used conventional belt-
positioning seats as controls and found that the 6-year-old dummy did
not submarine on the BubbleBum or on the conventional belt-positioning
seats. The commenter states that it has 11 years of field experience,
with over a million units in the field around the world and 70 percent
of these seats in the U.S. and that there are no reported injuries,
including submarining injuries, in crashes involving its product.
BubbleBum states that its product has been crash tested, approved to
the ECE requirements in Europe in the deflated state and tested in the
U.S. in a deflated state. It states that its product performs well in
the deflated test because it can maintain its structural integrity due
to

[[Page 84569]]

the High-Density Cellular Structure and webbing harness which, the
manufacturer states, are integral to the functionality and performance
of the seat. The commenter argues that adding compression deflection
testing to the regulation would not result in a ``measurable benefit''
to the health and safety of children.
JPMA commented with its view that research, testing and field
performance assessment must clearly demonstrate that addition of a
compression test offers real-world injury-reduction benefit given that
a compression test would be applied to all belt-positioning seats if
incorporated. JPMA said it would similarly like to see clear injury-
reduction benefit of rebound control metrics before such an addition is
considered, because the depth of the proposed standard seat assembly is
45 mm (1.77 inches) less than the current standard seat assembly and
developing and testing rebound control features would be further
complicated as a result.
NHTSA's Views
The agency thanks the commenters for their views on this matter.
While NHTSA agrees with BubbleBum that some non-inflatable belt-
positioning seats showed submarining during testing and that the
BubbleBum did not always submarine in these tests, NHTSA does not agree
that this information is a satisfactory answer to the increased risk of
submarining that test data are associating with inflatable belt-
positioning seats. Some non-inflatable belt-positioning seats may be
prone to submarining for features other than seat stiffness, but
several additional studies to the ones noted in the NPRM have also
identified a greater risk of submarining associated with inflatable
belt-positioning seats.
IIHS and UVA recently conducted a large-scale, parametric study
\204\ of 714 individual belt-positioning seats to examine the link
between booster seat designs and child occupant response during
simulated collisions. The study used the PIPER human body model, a
finite element (FE) model of the FMVSS No. 213 proposed standard seat
assembly and characterized key parameters in the belt-positioning seat
design space from a sample of 44 physical belt-positioning seats. The
findings of the study found inflatable boosters almost always resulted
in submarining of the dummy. In NHTSA's view, this recent study, the
studies referenced in the NPRM and Volvo's data (see Volvo's comment
above) suggest that inflatable belt-positioning seats are posing a
greater risk of submarining. NHTSA would like to determine whether such
risk is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\204\ Parametric study of booster seat design characteristics
Jason Forman, Matthew Miller, Daniel Perez-Rapela, Bronislaw Gepner,
University of Virginia, Center for Applied Biomechanics; Marcy
Edwards, Jessica Jermakian, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(US). Link: https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2245 [last
accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BubbleBum argues that its product is safe because it meets the
performance measures of FMVSS No. 213 while deflated. NHTSA is not
persuaded, as a deflated device is akin to a ``height-less'' device.
The risk of submarining is real with height-less devices, but difficult
to detect because the child dummy pelvis joint does not have the
flexibility of a human child pelvic joint. A human child can bend its
lower back and pelvis into a slouched position allowing the seat belt
to ride up the abdomen of the child (as the child submarines). In
contrast, the dummy's lower back and pelvis cannot bend as much as a
human (i.e., bend into a slouching position), which reduces the chances
of the seat belt moving upwards towards the abdomen when the dummy is
seated. In addition, FMVSS No. 213's test uses a locked (fixed) Type 2
seat belt that does not allow seat belt spool out (contrary to the
retractors in an actual vehicle), which prevents the dummy from having
a more forward movement in the dynamic event. Submarining can occur as
the child pelvis slips under the lap belt, loading the abdomen. This
means that the locked retractor is helping overcome the submarining
that would occur had the event been in a real vehicle with an actual
retractor. The locked retractor leads to unrealistically favorable
results in terms of submarining. Similarly, the locked retractor may
enable a dummy to exhibit head and knee excursions within FMVSS No.
213's limits when sitting on the standard seat assembly without a CRS--
even when the limits may be grossly exceeded in a test of the dummy in
a real vehicle with an actual retractor. This results in an analysis of
a restraint that is more favorable than it would likely be in a real-
world crash. As noted in the section above, NHTSA is working to add a
retractor to FMVSS No. 213 that is not locked.
JPMA commented that because the depth of the proposed standard seat
assembly is 45 mm (1.77 inches) less than the current standard seat
assembly, developing and testing rebound control features would be
further complicated. NHTSA understands that by ``depth'' JPMA is
referring to the thickness of the seat foam. We disagree that a thinner
seat foam in the updated standard seat assembly would complicate
booster seat rebound control features. Testing with the updated
standard seat assembly showed that current belt-positioning seat
designs already meet the updates to the standard, therefore, there will
be no need to develop new rebound control features. JPMA did not
provide any evidence on how the thinner foam would impact belt-
positioning seat designs.
NHTSA conducted compression tests \205\ on 14 CRS models \206\
spanning the different materials observed in the market (Table 14).
Test results showed that BubbleBum and Hiccapop (both inflatable belt-
positioning seats) were the only belt-positioning seats that failed the
compression tests with deflections reaching 42.56 and 49.4 mm (1.67 and
1.94 inches) respectively. The Clek Ozzi belt positioning seat made of
EPS foam almost reached the 25 mm (1 inch) deflection limit. The data
indicate that all non-inflatable belt-positioning seats would meet the
compression test, and test results with the updated standard seat
assembly show that belt-positioning seats also meet the performance
requirements. Therefore, most non-inflatable belt-positioning seats
would not need redesigning if a compression test were adopted into
FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\205\ Following CMVSS Test Method 213.2 Section 4 which
specifies using a 203 mm diameter flat plate to apply a vertical
force at a rate between 50 to 500 mm/min. An initial preload of 175N
(~40 lbs) is applied followed by a 2250N (~500 lbs.) load while
measuring the deflection when fully loaded. Booster seat must
deflect less than 25 mm.
\206\ The Mifold was also tested but was excluded from this data
as it was not determined whether the Mifold was a belt-positioning
seat.

[[Page 84570]]

Table 14--Belt-Positioning Seat Tested for Compression With Manufacturing/Material Details
[NHTSA test results]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deflection
Manufacturer Model Seat categories (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo............................... AMP Backless Booster.......... Injection molded........ 8.39
KidsEmbrace........................... Batman Backless Booster....... Blow molded............. 10.351
Graco................................. Turbo GO Folding Backless Injection molded........ 10.691
Booster.
Graco................................. Backless TurboBooster......... Injection molded........ 11.685
Lil Fan............................... Slimline No Back Seat Booster. Blow molded............. 12.654
Cosco................................. Topside Backless Booster...... Blow molded............. 12.809
Safety 1st............................ Incognito..................... EPP Foam................ 13.717
Graco................................. TurboBooster TakeAlong Injection molded........ 14.347
Backless Booster.
Safe Traffic System................... JD16100BKR-1 Delighter Booster EPP Foam................ 17.53
Chicco................................ Booster....................... Injection molded........ 17.968
Harmony............................... Juvenile Youth Backless Blow molded............. 19.054
Booster.
Clek.................................. Ozzi Booster.................. EPP Foam................ 24.234
Bubble Bum............................ Backless Booster.............. Inflatable.............. 42.496
Hiccapop.............................. Uberboost Inflatable Booster.. Inflatable.............. 49.427
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPMA believes that a compression limit should only be implemented
if a measurable benefit can be determined. In response, the Safety Act
authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards to protect the public
against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident. If the commenter
is saying that NHTSA must identify injuries found in the field, that is
an incorrect understanding of the Safety Act. NHTSA can move to issue
FMVSS requirements based on research data alone, without waiting for an
associated injury to be found in the field. BubbleBum argues that the
absence of reported injuries in the field is evidence of the safety of
their product. In response, reported injuries in the field may not
reflect the extent of injuries in the field or the likelihood that such
injuries may occur. Data are also sparse overall on injuries that may
affect only two products in the market, so if injuries were occurring
or being made more severe in the field due to an inflatable booster
compressing in a crash, it is unlikely information about such injuries
could be easily found. NHTSA believes the research data showing an
increased risk of injury due to the product compressing in a crash is
sufficiently concerning to warrant further exploration.
In response to BubbleBum's argument that a study showed that belt-
positioning seats have proven to be highly effective in preventing
injuries in the field, these data relate to conventional booster seats
that do not compress in a crash. The booster seats in the study have a
similar construction amongst them and are different from inflatable
devices. The effectiveness findings for these boosters cannot be
applied to a product that does not keep the child boosted (and
protected against submarining) throughout the crash event.
NHTSA plans to continue to look at inflatable belt-positioning
seats. The Automotive Safety Council, SBS and Volvo supported actions
to address the potential increased risk to safety of inflatable
designs. NHTSA is working to develop a surrogate retractor, and
additional belt-positioning seat performance measures,\207\ that may
help detect submarining in belt-positioning seats by allowing some
spool out of the seat belt webbing before locking, thus replicating the
retractors in actual vehicles. When the work is complete, NHTSA will
consider the merits of rulemaking to incorporate the surrogate
retractor and additional belt-positioning seat performance requirements
into FMVSS No. 213. The agency envisions that the future rulemaking
could include other approaches that address height-less devices as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\207\ Klinich, K.D., Jones, M.H., Manary, M.A., Ebert, S.H.,
Boyle, K.J., Malik, L., . . . Reed, M.P. (2020, April).
Investigation of potential design and performance criteria for
booster seats through volunteer and dynamic testing (Report No. DOT
HS 812 919). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119/dot_49119_DS1.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shield-Only-CRSs
Shield-only-CRSs only have a shield to restrain a young child's
upper torso, lower torso, and crotch. While such CRSs are currently not
available in the U.S., there are a wide variety of shield-only-CRSs in
Europe intended for children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Child
dummies (representing children aged 18-months old and 3-years-old)
restrained in shield-only-CRSs in simulated vehicle rollover tests, 64
km/h (40 mph) offset frontal impact vehicle crash tests, and in 64 km/h
(40 mph) Allgemeiner Deutsher Automobil-Club (ADAC) type frontal impact
sled tests were completely or partially ejected from the child
restraints. The test results raise concern about the ability of a
shield-only-CRS to retain small children in the CRS in certain crashes
or in a rollover. The NPRM sought comment on the findings of these
research tests. The agency asked if FMVSS No. 213 should require
shield-only-CRSs to have additional shoulder belts and a crotch strap,
similar to the requirements for child restraints that have belts
designed to restrain the child (S5.4.3.3).
Comments Received
NHTSA received comments providing perspectives from very different
points of view. Cybex provided historical information relating to the
research studies discussed in the NPRM to imply that current shield
child restraint systems would not exhibit the performance found in the
above tests. Cybex states that the European child restraint system
overturning test was amended in UN Regulation No. 44 in February 2014
to be more stringent, in part to address the performance of shield
systems in vehicle rollover tests. The improved overturning test
procedure was also introduced in the new UN Regulation No. 129 for
child restraints that entered into force on June 10, 2014. Cybex states
that all shield systems type-approved after the aforementioned dates
meet the improved overturning requirements, while ``the shield systems
that were used by Tylko would not have been subject to these more
stringent overturning requirements.'' Cybex also believes that shield
systems used in a study by TRL \208\ under contract to

[[Page 84571]]

Britax were likely approved prior to the amendment made to the
overturning test. Cybex states that UN R.129 is now the primary child
restraint system regulation in those parts of the world that follow UN
Regulations. The commenter believes that requirements in R.129 would
prevent a shield system that allows the partial ejection described in
the TRL study from gaining type-approval. The commenter suggests that
NHTSA ``consider adopting performance-based requirements instead of
specifying design constraints (e.g., minimum radius, curvature of
contactable surface, shoulder straps).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\208\ Visvikis, C., et al., ``Evaluation of shield and harness
systems in frontal impact sled experiments,'' TRL, UK. Johannsen,
H., Beillas, P., Lesire, P. ``Analysis of the performance of
different architectures of forward-facing CRSs with integral
restraint system,'' International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Seoul, Republic of Korea,
2013, Paper 13-0226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volvo commented that shield-only CRSs should not be used as they do
not restrain a child according to fundamental principles of protection.
The commenter explains that the fundamental principles include an early
coupling between the occupant and the restraint, which leads to reduced
loading on the child. Volvo states that a misuse study shows that
shields are not fastened tight enough to the child's body, likely for
the child's comfort. Volvo believes a shield-only child restraint
inherently is likely to have a higher risk of slack as compared to a
child restraint with a harness. ``A harness is needed to restrain the
child over the strong parts of the body and to ensure that the child
will not be ejected from the restraint.\209\ Volvo states that crash
testing,^{210 211} field studies,\212\ and misuse observation
\213\ studies all provide evidence that shield-only CRS do not address
the fundamental principles of protection and result in reduced occupant
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\209\ Kent R, Forman J. Restraint biomechanics, In: Yoganandan
N. Accidental Injury, Springer, 2015:116-8.
\210\ Johanssen H, Beillas P, Lesire P. Analysis of the
performance of different architectures of forward-facing CRS with
integral restraint systems, 23rd Int. ESV Conf., Paper No. 13-0226,
Seoul, Korea, 2013 Link: https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/23/files/Session%205%20Oral.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\211\ Tylko S, Bussiere A, Lepretre JP. Comparison of HIII and Q
series child ATDs for the evaluation of child restraint performance
during dynamic rollover, 12th Int. Conf. Protection of Children in
Cars, Munich, Germany, 2013.
\212\ Edgerton, Orzechowski KM, Eichelberger MR. Not all child
safety seats are created equal: the potential dangers of shield
booster seats, Pediatrics 113(3), 2004:153-158 Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5855078_Not_All_Child_Safety_Seats_Are_Created_Equal_The_Potential_Dangers_of_Shield_Booster_Seats [last accessed July 26, 2023].
\213\ Morris SD, Arbogast KB, Durbin DR, Winston FK, Misuse of
booster seats, Inj Prevention 6(4), 2000:281-4 Link: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/6/4/281.full.pdf [last
accessed: July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volvo did not support the idea of requiring the shield-only CRSs to
have shoulder belts and a crotch strap. The commenter states that an
internal harness is needed to ensure that the strong body parts are
engaged and to ensure early coupling with the child occupant, thus
reducing the risk of ejection. Volvo believes that once the harness has
been added to the child seat, the shield can be completely removed.
Volvo states that adding the belts and strap may increase the risk of
misuse as well as have a negative impact on ease-of-use.
Consumer Reports states that as there are not currently any shield-
only child restraints in the U.S., preventing their use would
presumably be more cost effective than the research and development
needed to determine how to regulate them best.
NHTSA's Views
The agency appreciates the information from these commenters. NHTSA
will consider them as it contemplates possible future actions the
agency should take to address shield-only child restraints.

b. Should infant carriers' height limits better align with their weight
limits?

NHTSA requested information on a matter showing up in the field
concerning children under 1YO outgrowing infant carriers by height much
earlier than by weight. Research studies conducted at UMTRI \214\ show
that some infant carriers marketed as suitable for children up to 13.6
kg (30 lb) cannot ``fit'' the height of a 95th percentile 1 YO or an
average 1.5 YO.\215\ NHTSA stated that the agency believes that infant
carriers' height and weight recommendations should better match the
children for whom the CRS is recommended. NHTSA requested comment on
UMTRI's research findings. The NPRM asked: Should infant carriers'
height and weight recommendations better match up to better accommodate
the children for whom the CRS is recommended?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\214\ Manary. M., et al., ``Comparing the CRABI-12 and CRABI-18
for Infant Child Restraint System Evaluation.'' June 2015. DOT HS
812 156. The report is available in the docket for this NPRM.
\215\ Field experience indicates that children at the higher end
of growth charts typically outgrow the carriers by height at around
9-10 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
NHTSA received a number of views on this issue.
Evenflo states that individual manufacturers have historically
determined whether their products can accommodate children recommended
for their seats who fall within the height and weight limits and that
research referenced in the NPRM confirms there are no uniform practices
for child sizes that are being used by manufacturers for determining
proper heights and weights for infant CRSs. Evenflo and Cybex refer to
the UN child restraint regulation (UN R.129). Evenflo states that R.129
``deals with this issue directly by specifying the child size data
which must be used to classify child restraints.'' Cybex also
references the Australia and New Zealand child restraint standard (AS/
NZ 1754) which establishes critical dimensions for all manufacturers to
use in the design and development of CRSs and belt-positioning seats.
Evenflo and Cybex note that adopting the approach of these regulations
would be a way to establish height and weight ranges for CRSs that can
be applied consistently from manufacturer to manufacturer.
JPMA states it is open to the concept of aligning interior child
restraint dimensions with child stature, and that it has seen similar
concepts reflected in other regulations. While the commenter did not
name the regulations, NHTSA assumes JPMA is referring to the UN and AS/
NZ standards.
Consumer Reports (CR) supports that height limits should more
accurately match rear-facing-only infant seat weight limits to reflect
real children. CR explained that higher weight limits should not be
used as a marketing tool without an appropriate accompanying height
limit (e.g., a 13.6 kg (30-pound) CRS should not have a 29-inch height
limit).
CR believes that NHTSA is missing an opportunity to address the
current disconnect in the weight and height limits of rear-facing-only
infant seats. CR explains that current rear-facing-only infant seats
have weight maximums that are not commensurate with the seat's shell
height or height limitations. CR states that of the 36 infant seats
currently in CR's ratings, 33 have maximum weight limits of between
13.6 kg (30 lb) and 15.8 kg (35 lb) but have height limits between 762
to 812 mm (30 and 32 inches). CR comments that, based on CDC growth
charts, the combination of the lowest weight limit for that group (13.6
kg (30-pound)) with the highest height limit (812 mm (32 inches)): a
15.8-kg (35-pound) child is approximately a 95th percentile 28-month-
old, whose height would be between 889 to 1016 mm (35 to 40 inches). CR
adds that of the 66 infant seats in the market, only three

[[Page 84572]]

have a 889-mm (35-inch) height limit and 46 out of 66 infant seats
listed there have a 15.8-kg (35-pound) limit. CR opined that this
practice potentially results in misuse for kids remaining in their
rear-facing infant carrier after they have exceeded the height
limitations. CR recommends that NHTSA should set standards prohibiting
manufacturers from having weight and height allowances that are so
disparate.
Volvo states that it is essential to ensure that the optimal CRS is
used for the child (age and size) and that the child must fit in the
infant CRS, for it to provide good protection. Volvo supports NHTSA's
view that infant CRS height and weight recommendations should better
align with the children for whom the CRS is recommended. Volvo states
that the UMTRI study shows that infant CRSs vary in size, so it is
essential that customers are provided clear and relevant information on
what size child the CRS is designed for. Volvo believes that an
appropriate clearance between the top of the head and the top of the
CRS shell is essential because in the real-world environment, there is
likely a vehicle seat in front posing a risk of head impacts if the
head is positioned too close. Volvo notes that it encourages transfer
to a larger CRS that can be used rearward-facing as soon as the infant
is not carried easily in the infant CRS.
SRN disagrees that weight limits of CRSs should better match the
height limits. SRN states that, having experienced when rear-facing
weight limits were inadequate to keep even many 1-year-old rear-facing,
``we appreciate the buffer that today's models provide.'' (NHTSA
understands this to mean SRN appreciates the higher weight limits of
the infant carriers sold today even if a child may outgrow an infant
seat by height before reaching the weight limit of the CRS, because the
higher limits result in more children riding rear facing.) SRN states
that since the height limit is constrained by the fore-aft space in
vehicles, any alignment in height and weight limits would involve
lowering the rear-facing weight limits. SRN states, ``This is not a
direction we want to go, especially given that many state laws now
specify a child age limit for RF assuming the ample weight limits
provided by today's CRSs, even for the heaviest children.'' SRN states
it would be better to see a greater emphasis on the instructions for
height limits, especially the application of a required rear-facing
height maximum indicator directly on the front of the CRS.
Graco does not address the specific question NHTSA posed about
infant seats. Instead, the commenter discusses FMVSS No. 213's seat
back height requirements generally and Graco's ideas for amending the
standard relating to child restraints that have adjustable-height seat
backs that ``grow with the child.''
NHTSA's Views
NHTSA is aware of the approach of UN R.129 and AS/NZ 1754 and is
considering the benefits and challenges of such an approach. We believe
that some of the changes in this final rule will address this issue to
an extent. For example, infant carriers will most likely be marketed
for children up to 13.6 kg (30 lb) and not heavier children. As a
result, there will be many fewer infant carriers (if at all) in the
future where children will outgrow them by height before reaching the
weight threshold. If a manufacturer decides to recommend an infant
carrier for children over 13.6 kg (30 lb), then that CRS will be
subject to testing using the 3-year-old dummy as well and will need to
be large enough to accommodate the dummy. All matters raised by the
commenters will be considered by NHTSA as the agency decides whether
and how to address this matter in the future.

c. Virtual Models for CRS Fit

NHTSA has supported the development of computer models of children
of different weights and heights to assist CRS manufacturers in
designing child restraints that better fit the children for whom the
CRS is recommended.\216\ These virtual models are available to the
public to improve the fit of CRSs to children.\217\ NHTSA requested
comments from manufacturers and other parties on whether they use the
models and whether the models are helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\216\ NHTSA has sponsored an UMTRI project developing toddler
virtual dummies for use in improving of the fit of CRSs to child
passengers. Information on a 2015 UMTRI workshop describing
development of the toddler virtual fit dummies can be found at:
http://umtri.umich.edu/our-results/projects/umtri-workshop-new-tools-child-occupant-protection.
\217\ Toddler virtual models available for download at: http://childshape.org/toddler/manikins/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA received several comments providing feedback on the models.
Britax identified what it called a few key areas for future development
that the commenter believes would further increase the utility of the
virtual models for CRS fit. Britax suggests the following additions to
the model: (i) the expansion of the covered age range through infancy,
and (ii) the ability to articulate the toddler model, especially
flexion angle at the hip and flexion/extension of the torso and neck.
Similarly, Cybex, Evenflo, and Volvo state that the models would be
more useful if they could be manipulated into more natural positions or
adjusted at major points. Volvo encourages further developments,
including features making it possible to change the posture of the
models to fit the specific CRS or vehicle seats. Evenflo states that
virtual fit checks of the mannequins in car seats would be possible.
Graco states that it has not used NHTSA's virtual child models and
is unlikely to do so in the future as they are provided in STL format
and are not particularly suitable for manipulation (such as changing
the seating posture or reorienting the arms relative to the torso) in
the computer aided design software used by Graco. Graco suggests that
NHTSA might consider making the models available in a data format that
can be more readily integrated into users' computer aided modeling
tools, such as Parasolid or STEP.
NHTSA's Response
NHTSA appreciates the suggestions for improving the models. The
agency will consider improving the virtual models so that they provide
more functionality, such as with moving joints to better position the
virtual models, and so they can be used in a more accessible data
format.

XIV. Lead Time and Compliance Dates

The NPRM proposed that the compliance date for most of the
amendments in the rulemaking action would be three years following the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, with
optional early compliance permitted, except as follows:
A 180-day compliance date was proposed for the changes to
registration card requirements and the proposed changes to permit more
add-on school bus child restraint systems (early optional compliance
would be permitted for both); and,
A 1-year compliance date was proposed for labeling and
printed instructions requirement changes (early optional compliance
would be permitted).
Comments Received
All comments on this issue supported the proposed lead times and
compliance dates. JPMA supported the proposed option for early
compliance ``so CRS model designs can be optimized to comply with one
set of test configurations, rather than two.'' The commenter also added
that the lead time for labeling and printed instructions changes should
provide

[[Page 84573]]

time to allow manufacturers to use current labels for a period so
``existing supplies can be exhausted and production processes are
minimally interrupted by the changes.''
Dorel, Evenflo, and, IMMI also supported the proposed option for
early compliance. Dorel stated that labeling, registration and dummy
compliance testing in the NPRM could be brought to a final rule quickly
as these were ``not controversial.'' Evenflo asked whether the labeling
changes that must be implemented by the end of the one-year lead time
and the testing changes that must be implemented by the end of 3 years
will require two labeling updates, which, Evenflo stated, seems
inefficient and potentially confusing to the consumer. Graco
recommended that the effective dates of both the revised frontal and
the new side impact coincide. Graco suggested that all proposed changes
affecting labels become mandatory concurrently, except for S5.5.2(f)
where Graco suggested that manufacturers should have the option of
adopting this section upon issuance of the final rule or a short time
thereafter.
Agency Response
This final rule adopts the compliance dates proposed in the NPRM
except to provide 1 year for the changes to school bus CRS, labeling,
and registration card changes. The change is made to align with the
requirements for the labeling and printed instructions changes, to
reduce the need for manufacturers having to deal with multiple
compliance dates within the standard. We note that there is minimal or
no practical consequence to providing a year for the changes rather
than 180 days. The amendments pertaining to the school bus CRS and
registration program are permissive and do not require manufacturers to
change any of their current practices. Further, voluntary early
compliance is permitted, so manufacturers can implement the changes as
soon as they want. NHTSA does not believe having the labeling changes
with an earlier compliance date than the new testing requirements would
be inefficient as early compliance is an option and manufacturers could
accommodate early compliance if they so choose. NHTSA's data show that
current CRS models, for the most part, already would comply with the
new FMVSS No. 213b test requirements. NHTSA also does not believe that
making labeling changes and testing requirements effective on two
different dates would be confusing to the consumer. The labeling
changes and testing are transparent to the consumer; they usually do
not know how CRSs are tested and the labeling changes with different
weight and height recommendations will simply guide whether to buy and/
or how to use a CRS.
If early compliance is chosen by a manufacturer for a CRS model,
the CRS model must meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213,
including the amendments to FMVSS No. 213 made by this final rule, or
all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213b. Manufacturers will not
be allowed to pick and choose among the requirements within a standard
or comply early with some in a standard and not in others. In part,
this provision is to support the efficiency of NHTSA's compliance
program.\218\ If manufacturers were permitted to pick and choose which
requirements they would like to meet early, NHTSA would have to keep
track of the standard's individual requirement according to
manufacturer's input on hundreds of CRS models. NHTSA seeks to limit
such burdens on the compliance program. In addition, the requirement
reduces potential consumer confusion about which standards a purchased
CRS meets. If manufacturers were permitted to meet some requirements
early but not others, consumers may believe they purchased a CRS
meeting, for example, the upgraded standard FMVSS No. 213b when the CRS
did not meet all the requirements in FMVSS No. 213b. NHTSA would like
to avoid this possible source of consumer misunderstanding. This would
also allow for a more equitable enforcement across manufacturers with
the two distinct updates to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\218\ This provision is regularly used by NHTSA when the agency
permits optional early compliance with a standard. The agency
restricts manufacturers from selectively meeting some but not all of
the amended requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under Sec. 30111(d) of the Safety Act, a standard may not become
effective before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or
later than one year after it is prescribed, unless NHTSA finds, for
good cause shown, that a different effective date is in the public
interest and publishes the reasons for the finding. A 3-year compliance
period is in the public interest because CRS manufacturers need to gain
familiarity with the updated standard seat assembly and new test
protocols and will need time to assess their products' conformance to
the new FMVSS No. 213b requirements. They will need time to implement
appropriate design and production changes. A 3-year lead time is also
appropriate because it aligns with the typical design cycle of child
restraints. Aligning with design cycles can help reduce the cost of
compliance and possible price increases on consumers.
The 3-year compliance date for the final rule, with the early
compliance option, provides the same 3-year lead time as the final rule
establishing FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child restraint systems--Side impact
protection'' (87 FR 39234, June 30, 2022). The compliance date for
FMVSS No. 213a is June 30, 2025, with optional early compliance
permitted. NHTSA does not see a reason to delay the compliance date of
the side impact rule another year, or to shorten the lead time for this
final rule a year. Making the compliance dates of the two rules
coincide has some merit but the consequences of aligning them with
regard to this final rule and the side impact protection standard
(FMVSS No. 213b) outweigh such merit. With the option for early
compliance, manufacturers have sufficient flexibility in deciding how
they will meet these final rules.

XV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094 and DOT Rulemaking
Procedures

The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory procedures. This final rule is
nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 14094 and was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget. It is also not considered ``of
special note to the Department'' under DOT Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking
and Guidance Procedures.

Estimated Benefits and Costs

This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213 by (a) updating the standard
seat assembly to better represent the rear seating environment in the
current vehicle fleet, (b) amending several labeling and owner
information requirements to improve communication with today's CRS
caregivers and to align with current best practices for child passenger
safety, and (c) amending how NHTSA uses dummies to make the agency's
compliance tests more evaluative of CRS performance. The rule will
provide some safety benefits with, at most, minimal incremental costs.
Updated Standard Seat Assembly
The updates to the standard seat assembly in this final rule will
better align the performance of CRSs in compliance tests to that in
real world crashes.

[[Page 84574]]

Based on NHTSA's tests of CRS models representing the market of
infant carrier, convertible, all-in-one, and booster type CRSs on the
updated standard seat assembly, the agency believes that only a few
CRSs may need to be redesigned to meet the requirements of the standard
on the updated standard seat assembly, and that those redesigns will be
minor.\219\ NHTSA is providing a lead time of three years for the
redesign. The agency has not estimated a cost of this redesign, as we
assume the redesign could be incorporated into a typical business model
involving manufacturers refining child restraint designs to freshen
their product lines. The refinements result in new product offerings
that appeal to consumers and help manufacturers remain competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\219\ Preliminary tests with the updated standard seat assembly
using an average 23.3 g peak acceleration pulse and an average 47.5
km/h (29.5 mph) velocity within the FMVSS No. 213 acceleration
corridor showed dummy HIC and chest accelerations in some booster
seats, tested with the HIII-6YO and HIII-10YO dummies, near or
exceeding allowable threshold levels. While NHTSA expects that some
booster seats may need to be redesigned to meet the performance
measures when tested with a higher acceleration pulse, these
redesigns could be accomplished without additional material cost.
For example, different foams could be used in the CRS seating
cushions that work better with the proposed stiffer standard seat
cushion foam to lower the HIC and chest g values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There will be costs involved in changing to the updated standard
seat assembly used by NHTSA to assess CRS compliance. However,
manufacturers are not required to use the updated standard seat
assembly. As a practical matter they usually choose to do so to test
their CRSs as similarly to the way NHTSA will test them, but it is not
a requirement to so test. The one-time cost of the updated standard
seat assembly sled buck is about $9,300. If a manufacturer chooses to
build the assembly itself or uses one at an independent test facility,
either way there would be minimal cost impacts when the cost of the
assembly and testing CRSs is distributed among the hundreds of
thousands of CRSs that would be sold by the manufacturers.
We are retaining the Type 1 seat belt assembly test for an
additional 3 years (2029) so there will be temporary additional annual
test costs of $5,198,000 \220\ for testing with the Type 1 seat belt
assembly up to the year 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\220\ There are currently 70 infant carrier models, 48
convertible CRS models, 60 all-in-one CRS models and 21 combination
CRS models. Each infant carrier would be tested in 2 configurations
with Type 1 seat belt including with and without base. Each
convertible and all-in-one CRS would be tested using Type 1 seat
belt installation in rear facing, forward facing and forward facing
with tether. Each combination CRS would be tested using Type 1 seat
belt installation in forward facing and forward facing with tether.
Each CRS would be subject to tests on average between 1 to 3
dummies. The cost of a sled test is estimated at $4,600. Therefore,
the temporary additional test cost is estimated to be $5,198,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Labeling and Owner Registration
The agency believes that the updates to the labeling requirements
will benefit safety by reducing the premature transition of children
from CRSs used rear-facing to forward-facing CRSs, and from forward-
facing CRSs to booster seats. The agency estimates 1.9 to 6.3 lives
will be saved and 2.6 to 8.7 moderate-to-critical severity injuries
will be prevented annually by aligning FMVSS No. 213's CRS user
instructions with current best practices on transporting children.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\221\ Details of the benefits analysis are provided in the
Appendix to the November 2, 2020 NPRM. 85 FR at 69455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The changes to the labeling requirements will have minimal or no
cost impacts, as mostly they are voluntary. This final rule provides
manufacturers the flexibility to provide required information in
statements or a combination of statements and pictograms at locations
that they deem most effective. Manufacturers may provide child weight
and height ranges for the use of CRSs in a specific installation mode
on existing labels by simply changing the minimum child weight limit
values. Since no additional information is required on the labels by
this final rule, the size of the label does not need to be increased.
Thus, there will be minimal or no additional cost for the labels. There
will also be no decrease in sales of forward-facing child restraint
systems or of booster seats as a result of the final rule's provisions
to raise the minimum child weight limit values for forward-facing CRSs
and booster seats. Most forward-facing CRSs cover a wide child weight
range, so the labeling changes will only affect how caregivers use the
products and not the quantity sold. For example, caregivers will still
purchase forward-facing CRSs but will use them when the child is at
least 1. They will still purchase convertible CRSs but will not turn
them forward-facing until the child is at least 1. They will still
purchase booster seats but will only move the child into them when the
child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb).
The changes to the registration program generally lessen
restrictions and are optional for manufacturers to implement. These
changes to the registration card provide flexibility to manufacturers
in how they communicate with consumers and will likely help improve
registration rates and recall completion rates. NHTSA cannot quantify
the benefits at this time. NHTSA estimates there are no costs
associated with the changes. While the changes could affect the
collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(which is discussed later in this section), there are no additional
material costs associated with the changes to the registration card or
to the CRS label or printed instructions pertaining to registration.
Manufacturers could use the same card and labels and just change the
wording on them.
Dummies
The updates to how dummies are used in the test for assessing CRS
performance better accord with current CRS designs and best practices
for transporting child passengers compared to the current
specifications in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot quantify the possible
safety benefits at this time.
Some of the changes lessen testing burdens by reducing the extent
of testing with dummies. For example, the final rule specifies that
CRSs for children weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) will no
longer be subject to certification with the HIII-3YO dummy. NHTSA
estimates a reduction in testing cost of $717,600 for the current
number of infant carrier models in the market.\222\ Also, CRSs for
children weighing 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb) will no longer be
certified with the CRABI-12MO. However, the agency does not expect any
reduction in testing costs from this latter modification since all CRSs
with internal harnesses are sold for children weighing less than 13.6
kg (30 lb), and so are still subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO in
that regard. The final rule also provides that the CRABI-12MO dummy
will no longer be used in forward-facing tests. NHTSA estimates a
reduction in testing cost of $2,373,600 \223\ for the forward-

[[Page 84575]]

facing CRSs that will no longer be certified with the CRABI-12MO. The
positioning procedure for the legs of the HIII-3YO dummy in CRSs used
rear-facing is unlikely to have cost implications because the procedure
is the same as that currently used by manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\222\ There are currently 52 infant carrier models with
recommended upper weight limit exceeding 10 kg (22 lb). Each CRS
designed for rear-facing use is tested in three different
configurations on the updated standard seat assembly with each dummy
used for testing the CRS: (1) CRS installed using seat belts, (2)
CRS installed using the lower anchors and no tether, and (3) CRS
installed without the base using the lower anchors and no tether.
The cost of a sled test is estimated at $4,600. Therefore, the cost
savings by not testing the 52 infant carrier models using the HIII-
3YO dummy is estimated to be $717,600 (= $4,600 x 3 x 52). Since
manufacturers typically conduct more than one test in each of the
CRS installation configurations, NHTSA expects the actual cost
savings to be greater than the estimated $717,600.
\223\ There are currently 129 forward facing CRSs (including
convertibles, all-in-one and combination) that would no longer be
tested with the CRABI-12MO. Each forward-facing CRS is tested in the
following different configurations: (1) CRS installed using Type 2
seat belts, (2) CRS installed using Type 2 seat belts and tether,
(3) CRS installed using the lower anchors and no tether, and (4) CRS
installed using the lower anchors and tether. The cost of a sled
test is estimated at $4,600. Therefore, the cost savings by not
testing the 129 forward facing models using the CRABI-12MO dummy is
estimated to be $2,373,600 (= $4,600 x 4 x 129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, NHTSA believes that testing CRSs solely with the HIII-
6YO rather than the H2-6YO dummy will not have significant cost
implications. This is because there would be little or no design
changes needed for the CRSs since nearly all the CRSs tested with the
HIII-6YO on the standard seat assembly complied with all the FMVSS No.
213 requirements.\224\ While some commenters (Graco, JPMA, Dorel and
Evenflo) opposed the proposal as they believe chin-to-chest contacts
have not been resolved, the data presented showed that the CRSs are
still capable of meeting the updated standard with the HIII-6YO.
NHTSA's testing also showed that CRSs that currently comply with FMVSS
No. 213 using the H2-6YO dummy also met all the performance
requirements in the standard when tested using the HIII-6YO dummy on
the new standard seat assembly. Manufacturers are increasingly
certifying at least some of their CRS models for older children using
the HIII-6YO dummy rather than the H2-6YO. This shows that most
manufacturers already have access to the HIII-6YO dummy and use it.
Most CRS manufacturers hire commercial test labs to test their CRSs for
conformance with FMVSS No. 213 requirements. These labs already have
the HIII-6YO dummy since some of their CRS manufacturer clients
currently want to certify their CRSs based on tests with the HIII-6YO
dummy. Thus, NHTSA believes there will not be an additional cost
associated with purchasing and testing with the HIII-6YO dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\224\ Of 21 tests with the HIII-6YO on the updated standard seat
assembly, all passed the performance metrics, except for one that
failed head excursion limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA believes that a lead time of three years is sufficient for
redesigning CRSs that may need modifications to comply with the
amendment. Most CRSs will need minor or no modifications as a result of
the final rule. Further, a 3-year time frame aligns with the typical
design cycle for CRSs. The agency notes also that the rule is designed
so that manufacturers can simply change the weight of the children for
whom the CRS is recommended to meet some of the requirements. Narrowing
the population of children for whom the CRS is recommended reduces the
certification burden on manufacturers as well as the number of tests
NHTSA may run to assess compliance.
School Bus Child Restraint Systems
The changes to include in FMVSS No. 213 a new type of add-on CRS
manufactured for exclusive use on school bus seats allow the sale of
these products. The agency estimates there are no cost impacts
associated with the changes because the amendment is permissive in
nature. The changes will benefit school bus transportation by
permitting more devices to be developed and used to transport preschool
children and children with special needs. However, NHTSA cannot
quantify these benefits at this time.

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), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this
certification.
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there
to be 38 manufacturers of child restraints, none of which are small
businesses. Even if there were a small CRS manufacturer, the impacts of
this rule will not be significant. NHTSA believes that virtually all
CRSs would meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements on the new seat assembly
without modification. Manufacturers may need to change the labels on
their child restraints pursuant to the requirements, but the changes
are minor and can be met by simply switching out values on current
labels.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule will not 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.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the

[[Page 84576]]

manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA
standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common
law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on
motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However,
if and when such a conflict does exist--for example, when the standard
at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard--the State common law
tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this
end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule and
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher
standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by
today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort
law would not conflict with the minimum standard adopted here. Without
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State
common law tort cause of action.

Civil Justice Reform

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the SAE International (SAE). The NTTAA
directs the agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. NHTSA searched for but did not find voluntary
consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments in this final
rule, other than ASTM D3574-11 ``Standard Test Methods for Flexible
Cellular Materials--Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams,'' and the
minor amendment to update the reference to SAE Recommended Practice
J211/1 to the March 1995 version.
However, consistent with the NTTAA, NHTSA reviewed the procedures
and regulations developed globally to dynamically test child restraints
and found areas of common ground.\225\ While there is no single
procedure or regulation of another country that sufficiently replicates
frontal crashes occurring in the U.S., the agency considered various
aspects of international regulations pertaining to the testing of child
restraint systems. NHTSA analyzed aspects of the seating assemblies
used by NPACS, ECE R.44 and Transport Canada's CMVSS No. 213 and the
frontal test speeds used worldwide in sled tests. NHTSA adopts a
requirement to test CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts, which is
consistent with CMVSS No. 213. NHTSA concludes that the provisions
increase CRS safety and promote harmonization of our countries'
regulatory approaches in testing CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\225\ The NTTAA seeks to support efforts by the Federal
government to ensure that agencies work with their regulatory
counterparts in other countries to address common safety issues.
Circular No. A-119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and
Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities,'' January 27, 2016, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, 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 annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2010
results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 = 1.36). This rule will not
result in a cost of $136 million or more to either State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues.
In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of
U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be
necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export
and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the
absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements.
NHTSA received a comment from the People's Republic of China making
suggestions about flammability and side impact requirements for child
restraints. The comment was out of the scope of this rulemaking.
In the discussion above on the NTTAA, NHTSA has noted that it has
reviewed the procedures and regulations developed by Transport Canada
regarding testing CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts and agrees with
the merits of the CMVSS No. 213 provision.

[[Page 84577]]

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. Before seeking OMB
approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day public comment period
and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each collection of information requirement. NHTSA believes
the changes to the owner registration program (571.213, S5.8)
constitute changes to a ``collection of information'' requirement for
child restraint system manufacturers. NHTSA is providing a 60-day
comment period on reporting burdens and other matters associated with
the owner registration program new requirements.
OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in
the request for comment document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected;
How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
Title: ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.''
OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals and Households.
Summary of the Collection of Information:
Child restraint manufacturers are required to provide an owner
registration card for purchasers of child restraint systems in
accordance with title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part
571, section 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' The registration card is
required to be perforated into two parts. The top part (information
part) contains a message and suitable instructions to be retained by
the purchaser. The size, font, color, and layout of the top part are
currently prescribed in Figures 9a and 9b,\226\ as is the attachment
method (fold/perforation) of the information card to the lower part of
the form (the mail-in card). The top part of the registration card sets
forth: (a) prescribed wording advising the consumer of the importance
of registering; (b) prescribed instructions on how to register; and (c)
prescribed statements that the mail-in card is pre-addressed and that
postage is already paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\226\ Prescribed in FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.''
As discussed in this preamble, this NPRM proposes to relieve some of
those restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom part (the mail-in card) is to be returned to the
manufacturer by the purchaser. The bottom part includes prepaid return
postage, the pre-printed name/address of the manufacturer, the pre-
printed model and date of manufacture, and spaces for the purchaser to
fill in his/her name and address. Optionally, child restraint
manufacturers are permitted to add to the registration form: (a)
Specified statements informing CRS owners that they may register
online; (b) the internet address for registering with the company; (c)
revisions to statements reflecting use of the internet to register; and
(d) a space for the consumer's email address.
Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide printed
instructions with new CRSs, with step-by-step information on how the
restraint is to be used, and a permanently attached label that gives
``quick look'' information on matters such as use instructions and
information on registering the CRS.
Under this final rule, the agency is amending the requirements that
prescribe wording advising the consumer of the importance of
registering their CRS and instructing how to register. NHTSA is
adopting changes to stop prescribing the wording. Instead, CRS
manufacturers are given leeway to use their own words to convey the
importance of registering the CRS and to instruct how registration is
achieved. NHTSA will allow statements instructing consumers to use
electronic (or any other means) of registering, as long as instructions
are provided on using the paper card for registering (including that
the mail-in card is pre-addressed and that the postage is pre-paid).
NHTSA will allow other means of electronic registration other than a
web address, such as a QR code, tine URL, or similar.
In this final rule, the agency is also removing restrictions on
manufacturers on their use of size, font, color, layout, and attachment
method of the information card portion. NHTSA is continuing a current
provision that prohibits any other information unrelated to the
registration of the CRS, such as advertising or warranty information.
With the changes to the information card adopted in this final
rule, NHTSA anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated
with the revised information card, labels and printed instructions.
Child restraint systems manufacturers produce, on average, a total of
approximately 16,000,000 child restraint systems per year. NHTSA
estimates there are 38 CRS manufacturers with 159 distinct CRS models.
The hour burden associated with the revised label consists of the
child restraint manufacturer: (a) designing the information card with
statements to instruct how to register, encourage registration and
optionally, how to register electronically and how the submitted
information will be used; and (b) updating this information on the
existing information card, label and printed instructions. NHTSA
assumes for purposes of this analysis that each manufacturer would
design the registration information on the information card, label and
printed instructions 5 times per year, whether it is to use different
registration card designs in different CRS models or to adapt the
design to improve registrations. The agency estimates 50 hours of
additional burden per child restraint manufacturer for the designing of
the registration card (information card portion), labels and printed
instructions that no longer have prescribed text (50 hours x 5 designs/
year x 38 CRS manufacturers = 9,599 hours annually).
Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 9,500 hours.
The burden of designing labels and printed instruction is minimal.
CRS manufacturers use templates to include in their CRSs. The design of
the basic label design is adjusted with necessary changes based on the
different models. Specific CRS labels can readily be created through
editing of text and insertion of updated diagrams. Therefore, there is
no new annualized burden associated with label and instruction
development.

[[Page 84578]]

Comments are invited on: Whether the described collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of
information technology.
You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number
above) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at (202) 366-
9826. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which
a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comment be
provided.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. 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 (65 FR 19477-78).

Incorporation by Reference

In updating the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213
frontal test, NHTSA incorporates by reference a drawing package titled,
``Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213,
No. NHTSA-213-2021, Child Frontal Impact Sled'' dated March 2023, into
FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). The drawing package consists of
detailed drawings and other materials related to the standard seat
assembly referenced in this final rule. Interested persons could use
the drawing package to manufacture the standard seat assembly for their
own use if they wished to do so.
NHTSA has placed a copy of the drawing package in the docket for
this final rule. Interested parties can download a copy of the drawing
package or view the materials on-line by accessing www.Regulations.gov.
This final rule also removes an incorporation by reference of SAE
Recommended Practice J211, ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,''
revised 1980, and replaces it with the 1995 version of J211 (J211/1) in
FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 213b (49 CFR 571.213b). The SAE J211/1
standard provides guidelines and recommendations for techniques of
measurements used in impact tests to achieve uniformity in
instrumentation practice and in reporting results. Signals from impact
tests have to be filtered following the standard's guidelines to
eliminate noise from sensor signals. Following J211/1 guidelines
provides a basis for meaningful comparisons of test results from
different sources. This final rule amends 49 CFR 571.5 to remove the
reference to Sec. 571.213 from the SAE recommended practice J211,
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,'' revised 1980. Interested parties
can obtain a copy of the SAE Recommended Practice J211/1
``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic
Instrumentation,'' from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096. Telephone: (724) 776-4841, website: www.sae.org.
This final rule also incorporates by reference the standard ASTM
D3574-11 ``Standard Test Methods for Flexible Cellular Materials--Slab,
Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams'' in FMVSS No. 213b. ASTM D3574 is a
standard method for testing flexible cellular urethane and polyurethane
foams. ASTM D3574 is used to measure and evaluate flexible foam
properties, including: density and indentation force deflection (IFD).
This final rule incorporates by reference ASTM D1056-07, Standard
Specification for Flexible Cellular Materials-Sponge or Expanded
Rubber, into FMVSS No. 213b. ASTM D1056-07 is a standard for cellular
materials, both Sponge (Open Cell) and Expanded (Closed Cell). ASTM
D1056 specifies several different procedures for testing flexible
cellular materials. The tests include a compression deflection test,
accelerated aging tests, compression-deflection tests, an oil-immersion
test (open-cell sponge); fluid immersion tests (closed cell); a water
absorption test; density tests; and a low-temperature flex test.
Interested parties can obtain a copy of the ASTM standards from
ASTM International at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA. Telephone: (877) 909-2786, website: www.astm.org/.
This final rule incorporates by reference the American Association
of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Gray Scale for Color Change.
AATCC Gray Scale for Color Change is used for assessing color change
during color fastness testing. The scale is used for visual assessment
to enable users to specify a rating from 1 to 5. Interested parties can
obtain the AATCC Gray Scale for Color Change at PO Box 12215 Research
Triangle Park, NC, USA. Telephone: (919) 549-8141, website:
www.aatcc.org/.
This final rule incorporates by reference Drawing No. 210-5000-
1(L), -2(R), Leg Assembly. The drawing shows the assembly and parts of
the 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart P) dummy's legs. The
drawing can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2001-11171-0004 in
www.regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2001-11171-0004).
The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this
document and were previously approved for the locations in which they
appear: Drawing Package, SAS-100-1000, Standard Seat Belt Assembly with
Addendum A, Seat Base Weldment (consisting of drawings and a bill of
materials), October 23, 1998; and Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard
Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2003,'' (consisting of
drawings and a bill of materials), June 3, 2003.

Severability

The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9.
It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the
application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is
unaffected.

Regulation Identifier Number

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of
each year. You

[[Page 84579]]

may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we 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
isn't 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 we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in writing this rule. Please inform the agency if you can
suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.

How do I submit confidential business information?

NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under Part 512. If you claim that any of the information or documents
provided in your submission constitutes confidential business
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or are protected
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you may either submit your
request via email or request a secure file transfer link from the
Office of the Chief Counsel contact listed below. You must submit
supporting information together with the materials that are the subject
of the confidentiality request, in accordance with Part 512, to the
Office of the Chief Counsel. Do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters.
Your request must include a request letter that contains supporting
information, pursuant to Part 512.8. Your request must also include a
certificate, pursuant to Part 512.4(b) and Part 512, Appendix A.
You are required to submit one unredacted ``confidential version''
of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment.
Pursuant to Part 512.6, the words ``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN
BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page
containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter
situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be
confidential, identify each item of information for which
confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit one redacted ``public version'' of
the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment.
Pursuant to Part 512.5(a)(2), the redacted ``public version'' should
include redactions of any information for which you are seeking
confidential treatment (i.e., the only information that should be
unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential
treatment). For questions about a request for confidential treatment,
please contact Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
dot.gov">Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov.

XVI. Appendices to the Preamble

Appendix A to the Preamble: Reproducibility Test Results

Evenflo Embrace 35--CRABI--Infant--LA Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test Chest clip
Test No. (mph) acceleration (g) HIC36 3ms (g) RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR06-19-28................... 30.1 23.6 660 54.8 51
RR06-19-29................... 30.0 23.5 632 54.6 51
RR06-19-30................... 30.0 23.5 637 55.9 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan...................................... St. Dev 14.9 0.7 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 642.8 55.1 51.4
%CV 2.3 1.3 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA117..................... 29.8 21.2 609 51.2 55
UFSSA118..................... 29.7 21.1 640 55.0 53
UFSSA119..................... 29.8 21.2 602 50.9 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.......................................... St. Dev 20.2 2.3 2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 617.1 52.4 55.0
%CV 3.3 4.4 3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_24.................... 29.4 20.9 566 53.7 47
FR_RR1_26.................... 29.4 21.1 617 58.7 44
FR_RR1_28.................... 29.4 21.0 556 48.6 45
TRC.......................................... St. Dev 32.5 5.0 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 579.7 53.7 45.4
%CV 5.6 9.4 3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests.................................... St. Dev 34.3 3.0 4.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 613.2 53.7 50.6
%CV 5.6 5.7 8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84580]]

Evenflo Embrace 35--CRABI--Infant--SB3PT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test Chest clip
Test No. (mph) acceleration (g) HIC36 3ms (g) RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR02-20-12................... 30.0 23.2 560 47.2 50
RR02-20-13................... 29.7 22.9 567 46.9 52
RR02-20-14................... 29.7 23.0 557 46.0 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan...................................... St. Dev 5.2 0.6 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 561.2 46.7 51.2
%CV 0.9 1.3 1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA210..................... 29.3 21.7 667 52.0 54
UFSSA211..................... 29.6 21.8 627 49.7 54
UFSSA212..................... 29.3 21.6 623 52.3 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.......................................... St. Dev 24.4 1.4 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 639.0 51.3 53.6
%CV 3.8 2.7 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests.................................... St. Dev 45.4 2.7 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 600.1 49.0 52.4
%CV 7.6 5.6 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chicco Key Fit--CRABI--Infant--LA Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test Chest clip
Test No. (mph) acceleration (g) HIC36 3ms (g) RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR06-19-34................... 29.7 23.1 380 43.9 52
RR06-20-27................... 29.6 23.1 347 43.9 50
RR06-20-28................... 29.8 23.2 378 44.4 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan...................................... St. Dev 18.7 0.3 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 368.1 44.1 51.0
%CV 5.1 0.7 2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA120..................... 29.8 21.4 466 45.1 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.......................................... ................. .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_36.................... 29.5 21.2 359 44.0 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.......................................... ................. .............. .............. ..............
All Tests.................................... St. Dev 46.7 0.5 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 385.9 44.3 50.1
%CV 12.1 1.1 6.7
SigmaL 13.1 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosco Scenera Next--HIII 3YO--RF--LA Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test Chest clip
Test No. (mph) acceleration (g) HIC36 3ms (g) RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR02-20-09................... 30.0 23.2 394 42.7 66
RR02-20-10................... 29.7 23.0 376 40.6 64
RR02-20-11................... 29.7 23.0 386 39.7 67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan...................................... St. Dev 9.4 1.5 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 385.4 41.0 65.6
%CV 2.4 3.7 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA201..................... 29.5 21.7 382 41.3 65
UFSSA202..................... 29.4 21.6 386 42.2 66
UFSSA203..................... 29.3 21.8 375 40.2 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84581]]

MCW.......................................... St. Dev 5.8 1.0 0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 381.1 41.2 65.5
%CV 1.5 2.4 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR_PE_08.................. 29.4 21.2 328 41.1 66
FR_RR_PE_10.................. 29.4 21.2 342 42.5 63
FR_RR_PE_12.................. 29.3 21.2 392 43.7 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.......................................... St. Dev 33.7 1.3 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 354.0 42.4 64.3
%CV 9.5 3.1 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests.................................... St. Dev 23.0 1.3 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 373.5 41.6 65.2
%CV 6.2 3.1 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco MyRide 65--HIII 3YO--RF--Type 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test Chest clip
Test No. (mph) acceleration (g) HIC36 3ms (g) RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR06-19-25................... 29.7 23.2 558 51.0 52
RR06-19-26................... 29.7 23.3 523 49.3 53
RR06-19-27................... 29.9 23.4 531 50.0 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan...................................... St. Dev 18.5 0.9 0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 537.4 50.1 52.8
%CV 3.4 1.7 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA_111.................... 29.8 21.3 432 47.4 61
UFSSA_112.................... 29.8 21.4 451 49.9 60
UFSSA_113.................... 29.7 21.2 459 49.7 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.......................................... St. Dev 13.6 1.4 0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 447.5 49.0 60.5
%CV 3.0 2.9 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_02.................... 29.5 21.2 475 48.5 62
FR_RR1_04.................... 29.5 21.1 494 48.8 54
FR_RR1_06.................... 29.5 21.0 494 50.2 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.......................................... St. Dev 10.9 0.9 4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 487.9 49.2 56.9
%CV 2.2 1.9 7.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests.................................... St. Dev 41.0 1.1 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 490.9 49.4 56.7
%CV 8.3 2.2 7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosco Scenera Next--HIII 3YO--FF--LATCH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA139............................................. 30.0 21.3 382 36.9 603 NA
UFSSA140............................................. 30.0 21.3 432 37.3 618 647
UFSSA141............................................. 30.0 21.3 449 37.9 628 650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW St. Dev. 35.0 0.5 12.8 2.2
Average 420.9 37.4 616.3 648.5

[[Page 84582]]

%CV 8.3 1.3 2.1 0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_37............................................ 29.7 21.4 363 38.9 593 NA
FR_RR1_38............................................ 29.6 21.3 384 40.4 591 NA
FR_RR1_39............................................ 29.6 21.2 369 40.8 594 NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC St. Dev. 10.8 1.0 1.4
Average 372.0 40.1 592.6
%CV 2.9 2.5 0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests St. Dev. 35.4 1.6 15.4
Average 396.5 38.7 604.5
%CV 8.9 4.2 2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmony Defender 360--HIII 3YO--FF--Type 2&T
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR02-20-08........................................... 29.9 23.1 499 49.1 593 NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA142............................................. 30.1 21.3 328 44.3 579 689
UFSSA143............................................. 30.1 21.3 347 45.6 569 684
UFSSA144............................................. 30.0 21.2 343 43.3 568 682
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW St. Dev. 10.5 1.2 5.9 3.5
Average 339.4 44.4 572.2 685.1
%CV 3.1 2.6 1.0 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR_PE_02.......................................... 29.2 21.2 400 42.8 560 660
FR_RR_PE_06.......................................... 29.3 21.2 373 41.8 570 674
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests St. Dev. 62.9 2.6 11.4 11.1
Average 381.7 44.5 573.3 678.0
%CV 16.5 5.9 2.0 1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SigmaL 9.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britax Marathon Clicktight--HIII 6YO--FF--LA Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR06-19-38........................................... 29.6 23.3 652 40.6 775 859
RR02-20-01........................................... 29.9 23.3 708 40.8 828 880
RR02-20-02........................................... 29.9 23.3 741 44.4 801 869
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan St. Dev. 45.4 2.1 26.6 10.5
Average 700.3 41.9 801.2 869.4
%CV 6.5 5.1 3.3 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA138............................................. 29.9 21.2 771 43.8 764 819
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_31............................................ 29.4 21.2 697 46.7 808 876
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests St. Dev. 45.2 2.6 25.9 24.7
Average 713.8 43.3 795.2 860.7
%CV 6.3 6.0 3.3 2.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84583]]

Evenflo SureRide--HIII 6YO--FF--LATCH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA129............................................. 29.7 21.2 359 42.4 681 787
UFSSA130............................................. 29.9 21.2 434 45.0 635 785
UFSSA131............................................. 29.8 21.2 373 45.1 664 791
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW St. Dev. 40.0 1.5 23.4 3.1
Average 389.0 44.2 660.0 787.6
%CV 10.3 3.4 3.5 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_25............................................ 29.4 21.1 366 42.7 649 773
FR_RR1_27............................................ 29.4 21.0 334 42.6 648 772
FR_RR1_29............................................ 29.5 21.2 359 42.9 638 765
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC St. Dev. 17.1 0.1 6.2 4.6
Average 353.1 42.7 644.7 770.0
%CV 4.8 0.3 1.0 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests St. Dev. 33.8 1.2 17.5 10.2
Average 371.0 43.4 652.4 778.8
%CV 9.1 2.9 2.7 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco Nautilus 65--HIII 6YO--FF--Type 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR04-19-01........................................... 29.4 22.8 456 44.6 648 732
RR04-19-04........................................... 30.1 23.3 490 45.6 669 732
RR05-19-09........................................... 29.8 23.5 474 45.7 666 742
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan St. Dev. 16.8 0.6 11.5 5.4
Average 473.4 45.3 660.8 735.4
%CV 3.5 1.3 1.7 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA_105............................................ 29.7 21.2 534 41.1 672 732
UFSSA_106............................................ 29.8 21.4 587 44.3 675 742
UFSSA_110............................................ 29.9 21.3 548 45.5 666 735
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW St. Dev. 27.5 2.3 4.6 5.2
Average 556.4 43.6 671.2 736.1
%CV 4.9 5.2 0.7 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_01............................................ 29.5 21.2 565 44.9 690 751
FR_RR1_03............................................ 29.5 21.1 550 46.6 676 737
FR_RR1_05............................................ 29.5 21.0 574 45.9 692 752
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC St. Dev. 12.2 0.9 8.4 8.5
Average 562.8 45.8 685.9 746.5
%CV 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests St. Dev. 46.5 1.6 13.2 7.8
Average 530.9 44.9 672.6 739.3
%CV 8.8 3.5 2.0 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosco Pronto HB--HIII 6YO--BPSB--Type 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR05-19-13........................................... 29.9 23.3 650 58.7 528 613
RR05-19-14........................................... 29.9 23.3 621 51.9 525 605
RR05-19-15........................................... 29.9 23.3 663 52.5 533 613
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan St. Dev. 21.6 3.8 4.3 4.3
Average 645.1 54.4 528.7 610.1
%CV 3.4 7.0 0.8 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA135............................................. 29.9 21.1 550 49.8 551 593
UFSSA136............................................. 30.0 21.2 604 47.0 517 600

[[Page 84584]]

UFSSA137............................................. 29.9 21.2 534 44.7 527 594
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW St. Dev. 36.6 2.5 17.9 3.8
Average 562.7 47.2 531.6 595.4
%CV 6.5 5.4 3.4 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_19............................................ 29.2 20.7 573 45.4 566 617
FR_RR1_21............................................ 29.3 20.8 606 45.3 568 619
FR_RR1_23............................................ 29.4 20.9 566 46.2 564 611
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC St. Dev. 21.1 0.5 2.1 4.4
Average 581.5 45.6 565.8 615.7
%CV 3.6 1.0 0.4 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests St. Dev. 44.3 4.7 20.1 9.8
Average 596.4 49.1 542.0 607.0
%CV 7.4 9.5 3.7 1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graco Affix--HIII6YO BPS--Type 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR04-19-05........................................... 29.5 23.0 457 52.3 463 602
RR06-20-38........................................... 29.9 23.1 498 52.7 477 602
RR06-20-39........................................... 29.9 23.1 464 50.7 474 605
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.............................................................. St. Dev 22.2 1.0 7.5 1.5
Average 473.2 51.9 471.0 603.0
%CV 4.7 2.0 1.6 0.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA132............................................. 29.9 21.1 519 48.0 475 587
UFSSA133............................................. 30.0 21.1 578 52.9 460 559
UFSSA134............................................. 30.1 21.1 563 52.5 486 598
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.................................................................. St. Dev 30.5 2.7 12.9 20.5
Average 553.0 51.1 473.5 581.4
%CV 5.5 5.2 2.7 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_13............................................ 29.3 20.8 485 53.9 482 591
FR_RR1_15............................................ 29.4 20.9 459 52.7 482 592
FR_RR1_17............................................ 29.4 20.8 537 53.8 501 596
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.................................................................. St. Dev 40.0 0.7 11.1 2.4
Average 493.8 53.5 488.3 593.0
%CV 8.1 1.2 2.3 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests............................................................ St. Dev 45.2 1.8 12.3 14.0
Average 506.7 52.2 477.6 592.4
%CV 8.9 3.5 2.6 2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmony Youth NB--HIII 6YO--BPS--Type 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR04-19-06........................................... 29.6 23.1 489 50.6 462 600
RR04-19-07........................................... 29.8 23.4 460 49.3 463 584
RR05-19-08........................................... 29.8 23.3 463 49.4 453 579
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.............................................................. St. Dev 16.0 0.7 5.2 10.7
Average 470.2 49.8 459.2 587.5
%CV 3.4 1.4 1.1 1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA_107............................................ 29.7 21.3 493 49.5 468 578
UFSSA_108............................................ 29.8 21.2 529 50.0 475 587
UFSSA_109............................................ 29.6 21.2 536 51.2 476 587
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 84585]]

MCW.................................................................. St. Dev 23.2 0.8 4.5 5.1
Average 519.2 50.2 473.1 583.9
%CV 4.5 1.7 1.0 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_07............................................ 29.2 20.8 409 46.3 476 579
FR_RR1_09............................................ 29.3 21.0 476 48.7 455 590
FR_RR1_11............................................ 29.2 21.0 489 48.4 468 585
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.................................................................. St. Dev 43.3 1.3 10.8 5.3
Average 458.2 47.8 466.2 584.7
%CV 9.4 2.7 2.3 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests............................................................ St. Dev 38.1 1.4 8.8 6.7
Average 482.6 49.3 466.2 585.4
%CV 7.9 2.9 1.9 1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britax Frontier Clicktight--HIII 10YO--FF--Type 2&T
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR05-19-20........................................... 29.8 23.4 n/a 38.5 701 817
RR05-19-21........................................... 29.8 23.4 n/a 43.6 701 840
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.............................................................. ................. .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA128............................................. 29.9 21.4 n/a 37.6 706 840
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.................................................................. ................. .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_08............................................ 29.2 20.8 n/a 41.3 714 825
FR_RR1_10............................................ 29.3 21.0 n/a 42.3 729 816
FR_RR1_12............................................ 29.2 21.0 n/a 38.3 720 822
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.................................................................. St. Dev n/a 2.1 7.2 4.4
Average n/a 40.6 721.1 820.9
%CV n/a 5.1 1.0 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests............................................................ St. Dev n/a 2.5 11.3 10.7
Average n/a 40.2 711.9 826.6
%CV n/a 6.1 1.6 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evenflo Big Kid LX HB--HIII 10YO--BPS--Type 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR05-19-16........................................... 29.8 23.2 n/a 43.3 525 693
RR05-19-17........................................... 29.9 23.3 n/a 42.6 518 644
RR05-19-18........................................... 29.7 23.1 n/a 44.0 515 690
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.............................................................. St. Dev n/a 0.7 5.6 27.4
Average n/a 43.3 519.2 675.6
%CV n/a 1.6 1.1 4.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA121............................................. 29.6 21.0 n/a 45.7 560 709
UFSSA122............................................. 29.7 21.1 n/a 47.0 540 712
UFSSA123............................................. 29.7 21.2 n/a 43.9 549 696
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW.................................................................. St. Dev n/a 1.6 9.9 8.5
Average n/a 45.6 549.7 705.3
%CV n/a 3.5 1.8 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_14............................................ 29.3 20.8 n/a 42.5 557 671
FR_RR1_16............................................ 29.4 20.9 n/a 43.2 562 669
FR_RR1_18............................................ 29.4 20.8 n/a 43.3 556 671
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.................................................................. St. Dev n/a 0.4 3.3 1.0

[[Page 84586]]

Average n/a 43.0 558.4 670.6
%CV n/a 1.0 0.6 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests............................................................ St. Dev n/a 1.5 18.8 21.7
Average n/a 44.0 542.5 683.8
%CV n/a 3.4 3.5 3.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to the Preamble: Repeatability Test Results

Cosco Scenera Next--Rear-Facing--12-Month-Old--Lower Anchor Only Installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) RF angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR02-20-15................... 29.7 23.0 329 42.5 57
RR02-20-16................... 29.8 23.1 336 42.1 59
RR02-20-17................... 29.8 23.1 305 37.7 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan...................................... St. Dev 16.0 2.7 1.9
Average 323.2 40.7 59.1
%CV 5.0 6.6 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maxi Cosi Pria HIII--10-Year-Old Forward-Facing CRS--Type 2 Belt Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR02-20-21........................................... 29.9 23.5 n/a 48.3 747 798
RR02-20-22........................................... 29.9 23.4 n/a 48.8 741 796
RR02-20-23........................................... 29.8 23.2 n/a 45.3 735 781
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan.............................................................. St. Dev n/a 1.9 5.7 9.3
Average n/a 47.5 741.0 791.7
%CV n/a 3.9 0.8 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmony Youth HIII-10-Year-Old--Belt-Positioning Seat--Type 2 Belt Installation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sled velocity Test acceleration Chest clip 3ms Head excursion Knee excursion
Test No. (mph) (g) HIC36 (g) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR_PE_1........................................... 29.2 21.2 n/a 42.8 497 688
FR_RR_PE_3........................................... 29.3 21.2 n/a 43.5 483 675
FR_RR_PE_5........................................... 29.3 21.2 n/a 43.2 481 676
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC.................................................................. St. Dev n/a 0.4 9.1 7.0
Average n/a 43.2 486.9 679.7
%CV n/a 0.9 1.9 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Incorporation by Reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, and Tires.

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Section 571.5 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(16);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(22) through (38) as paragraphs (d)(23)
through (39);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d)(22) and paragraphs (k)(6) and (7); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (l)(3) and (4).
The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) AATCC Evaluation Procedure (EP) 1-2007, Gray Scale for Color
Change, reaffirmed 2007; into Sec. 571.213b.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(16) ASTM D1056-07, Standard Specification for Flexible Cellular

[[Page 84587]]

Materials-Sponge or Expanded Rubber, approved March 1, 2007; into
Sec. Sec. 571.213; 571.213b.
* * * * *
(22) ASTM D3574-11, Standard Test Methods for Flexible Cellular
Materials--Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams, approved December
1, 2011; into Sec. 571.213b.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(6) NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-
2021, Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No.
213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, Child Frontal Impact Sled, March 2023; into
Sec. 571.213b.
(7) Drawing No. 210-5000-1 (L), -2(R), Leg Assembly, Parts List and
Drawings, Subpart P Hybrid III 3-year-old child crash test dummy, (H-
III3C, Alpha version), September 2001, Drawing No. 210-5000-1(L), -
2(R), Leg Assembly; into Sec. 571.213b.
(l) * * *
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, Instrumentation for Impact
Tests, revised June 1980; into Sec. 571.218.
(4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, Instrumentation for Impact
Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation; revised March 1995;
Sec. Sec. 571.202a; 571.208; 571.213; 571.213a; 571.213b; 571.218;
571.403.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.213 is amended by
0
a. Revising the section heading and S3;
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``school bus child
restraint system'' to S4;
0
c. Revising the table to S5.1.3.1(a) and adding table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a);
0
d. Revising the introductory text to S5.3.1(b);
0
e. Adding S5.3.1(c) and S5.3.2.1;
0
f. Revising S5.5.2(f) and S5.5.2(g)(1)(i);
0
g. Removing and reserving S5.5.2(l)(2),
0
h. Revising the introductory text of S5.5.2(l)(3)(i), and S5.6.1.7;
S5.6.1.11, S5.6.2.2, and S5.8.1(a);
0
i. Adding section S5.8.1.1;
0
j. Revising the introductory text of S5.8.2(a);
0
k. Adding section S5.8.2.1;
0
l. Revising S5.9(a), S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B), S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G),
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B), and the introductory text of S10.2.3; and,
0
m. Adding figures 9a-2 and 9b-2 in alphanumeric order.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 571.213 Child restraint systems; Applicable unless a vehicle or
child restraint system is certified to Sec. 571.213b.

* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, and to child
restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft, manufactured
before December 5, 2026. FMVSS No. 213b applies to child restraint
systems manufactured on or after December 5, 2026.
S4. Definitions
* * * * *
School bus child restraint system means an add-on child restraint
system (including a harness) manufactured and sold only for use on
school bus seats, that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b). (This
definition applies to child restraint systems manufactured on or after
December 5, 2024.)
* * * * *

Table 1 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used Forward-Facing Manufactured Before December 5,
2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: in the
test specified in 2nd
column, the child restraint
When this type of child restraint Is tested in These excursion limits is attached to the test
accordance with-- apply seat assembly in the manner
described below, subject to
certain conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses and restraints designed S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt; in
for use by children with physical mm. addition, if a tether is
disabilities. provided, it is attached.
Harnesses labeled per S5.3.1(b)(i) S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with seat back
through S5.3.1(b)(iii) and Figure mm. mount.
12.
Belt-positioning seats............. S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii)...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
mm. shoulder belt; no tether
is attached.
All other child restraints (i.e., S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap belt,
other than harnesses, restraints mm. without a tether attached;
designed for use by children with and,
physical disabilities, harnesses Attached to lower
manufactured exclusively for anchorages of a child
school buses, and belt-positioning restraint anchorage
seats). system; no tether is
attached.
All other child restraints (i.e., S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), Head 720 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap belt,
other than harnesses, restraints S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). mm. with a tether attached;
designed for use by children with and,
physical disabilities, harnesses Attached to lower
labeled per S5.3.1(b)(i) through anchorages of child
S5.3.1(b)(iii) and Figure 12, and restraint anchorage
belt-positioning seats). system, with a tether
attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used Forward-Facing Manufactured On or After
December 5, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: in the
test specified in 2nd
column, the excursion
requirement must be met
Is tested in These excursion limits when the child restraint
When this type of child restraint accordance with-- apply system is attached to the
test seat assembly in the
manner described below,
subject to certain
conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses and restraints designed S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
for use by children with physical mm. shoulder belt; in
disabilities. addition, if a tether is
provided, it is attached.
School bus child restraint systems. S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with seat back
mm. mount, or, seat back, and,
seat pan mounts.

[[Page 84588]]

Booster seats...................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii)...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
mm. shoulder belt; no tether
is attached.
Child restraints other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap belt;
harnesses, restraints designed for mm. without a tether attached.
use by children with physical Attached to lower
disabilities, school bus child anchorages of child
restraint systems, and booster restraint anchorage
seats. system; with no tether
attached.
Child restraints other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), Head 720 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap belt,
harnesses, restraints designed for S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). mm. with a tether attached.
use by children with physical Attached to lower
disabilities, and school bus child anchorages of child
restraint systems. restraint anchorage
system, with a tether
attached.
Child restraints equipped with a S6.1.2(a)(2).......... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt, no
fixed or movable surface described mm. tether is attached.
in S5.2.2.2 that has belts that
are not an integral part of that
fixed or movable surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
S5.3.1 * * *
(b) School bus child restraint systems (including harnesses
manufactured for use on school bus seats) must have a label that
conforms in content to Figure 12 and to the requirements of
S5.3.1(b)(1) through S5.3.1(b)(3) of this standard. The label must be
permanently affixed to the part of the school bus child restraint
system, that attaches the system to a vehicle seat back.
* * * * *
(c) The provision that add-on child restraint systems shall meet
the requirements of this standard when installed solely by a Type 1
belt applies to child restraint systems manufactured before September
1, 2029. Except for harnesses, the requirement sunsets for child
restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2029. For
harnesses, the requirement does not sunset and continues to apply to
harnesses manufactured on or after September 1, 2029.
* * * * *
S5.3.2.1 School bus child restraint systems manufactured on or
after December 5, 2024, shall be capable of meeting the requirements of
this standard when installed by seat back mount, or, seat back mount
and seat pan mount.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(f) For child restraint systems manufactured before December 5,
2024, paragraph (f)(1) of this section applies. For child restraint
systems manufactured on or after December 5, 2024, paragraph (f)(2) of
this section applies.
(1) One of the following statements, as appropriate, inserting the
manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum mass of children who can
safely occupy the system, except that booster seats shall not be
recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg. For child
restraint systems that can only be used as belt-positioning seats,
manufacturers must include the maximum and minimum recommended height,
but may delete the reference to weight:
(i) Use only with children who weigh __ pounds (__ kg) or less and
whose height is (insert values in English and metric units; use of word
``mass'' in label is optional) or less; or
(ii) Use only with children who weigh between __ and __ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less and who are capable of sitting upright alone; or
(iii) Use only with children who weigh between __ and __ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is (insert appropriate values in English and
metric units) or less.
(iv) Use only with children who weigh between __ and __ pounds
(insert appropriate English and metric values; use of word ``mass'' is
optional) and whose height is between __ and __ (insert appropriate
values in English and metric units).
(2) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after December
5, 2024: Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the mass and height
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward-facing,
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend forward-facing use
for child restraint systems with internal harnesses for children of
masses less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend booster seats
for children of masses less than 18.4 kg (40 lb).
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by
5.5.2(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), 5.5.2(j),
and 5.5.2(i). For child restraint systems manufactured on or after
December 5, 2024, the statements required by 5.5.2(f) and 5.5.2(k)(2)
need not be included.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) If the child restraint system is designed to meet the
requirements of this standard when installed by the child restraint
anchorage system according to S5.3.2, and if the sum of the weight of
the child restraint system and the maximum child weight recommended for
the child restraint when used with the restraint's internal harness or
components is greater than 65 lb when used forward-facing or rear-
facing, include the following statement

[[Page 84589]]

on this installation diagram: ``Do not install by this method for a
child weighing more than *.'' At the manufacturer's option, ``*'' is
the child weight limit in English units in accordance with
S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B) or (C). The corresponding child weight limit in
metric units may also be included in the statement at the
manufacturer's option.
* * * * *
S5.6.1.7(a) For child restraint systems manufactured before
December 5, 2024, one of the following statements, inserting an address
and a U.S. telephone number. If a manufacturer opts to provide a
website on the registration card as permitted in Figure 9a of this
section, the manufacturer must include the statement in paragraph
S5.6.1.7(a)(2):
(1) ``Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You
must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name,
address, email address if available (preceding four words are
optional), and the restraint's model number and manufacturing date to
(insert address) or call (insert a U.S. telephone number). For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
(2) ``Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You
must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name,
address, email address if available (preceding four words are
optional), and the restraint's model number and manufacturing date to
(insert address) or call (insert telephone number) or register online
at (insert website for electronic registration form). For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
(b) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after December
5, 2024, the child restraint system shall include statements informing
the owner of the importance of registering the child restraint for
recall purposes and instructing the owner how to register the child
restraint at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S. telephone
number. The following statement must also be provided: ``For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.6.1.11(a) For harnesses that are manufactured before December 5,
2024, for use on school bus seats, the instructions must include the
following statement:
``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats.
Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained
occupants.'' The labeling requirement refers to a restrained occupant
as: an occupant restrained by any user appropriate vehicle restraint or
child restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder belt, booster,
child seat, harness . . .).
(b) For school bus child restraint systems manufactured on or after
December 5, 2024, the instructions must include the following
statement:
``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats.
Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained
occupants.'' (The instruction's reference to a ``restrained occupant''
refers to an occupant restrained by any user-appropriate vehicle
restraint or child restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder
belt, booster seat or other child restraint system.)
* * * * *
S5.6.2.2(a) For child restraint systems manufactured before
December 5, 2024, the instructions for each built-in child restraint
system other than a factory-installed restraint, shall include one of
the following statements, inserting an address and a U.S. telephone
number. If a manufacturer opts to provide a website on the registration
card as permitted in Figure 9a of this section, the manufacturer must
include the statement in S5.6.2.2(a)(2):
(1) ``Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You
must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name,
address, email address if available (preceding four words are
optional), and the restraint's model number and manufacturing date to
(insert address) or call (insert a U.S. telephone number). For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
(2) ``Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You
must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name,
address, email address if available (preceding four words are
optional), and the restraint's model number and manufacturing date to
(insert address) or call (insert U.S. telephone number) or register
online at (insert website for electronic registration form). For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
(b) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after December
5, 2024, the instructions for each built-in child restraint system
other than a factory-installed restraint shall include statements
informing the owner of the importance of registering the child
restraint for recall purposes and instructing the owner how to register
the child restraint at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S.
telephone number. The following statement must also be provided: ``For
recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline
at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.8.1 * * *
(a) For child restraint systems manufactured before December 5,
2024, each child restraint system, except a factory-installed built-in
restraint system, shall have a registration form attached to any
surface of the restraint that contacts the dummy when the dummy is
positioned in the system in accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213.
* * * * *
S5.8.1.1 Upgraded attached registration form. For child restraint
systems manufactured on or after December 5, 2024, each child restraint
system, except a factory-installed built-in restraint system, shall
have a registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that
contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system in
accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. The form shall not have
advertising or any information other than that related to registering
the child restraint system.
(a) Each attached registration form shall provide a mail-in
postcard that conforms in size, and in basic content and format to the
forms depicted in Figures 9a' and 9b' of this section.
(1) The mail-in postcard shall:
(i) Have a thickness of at least 0.007 inches and not more than
0.0095 inches;
(ii) Be pre-printed with the information identifying the child
restraint system for recall purposes, such as the model name or number
and date of manufacture (month, year) of the child restraint system to
which the form is attached;
(iii) Contain space for the owner to record his or her name,
mailing address, email address (optional), telephone number (optional),
and other pertinent information;
(iv) Be addressed to the manufacturer, and be postage paid.
(v) Be detachable from the information card without the use of
scissors or other tools.

[[Page 84590]]

(c) The registration form attached to the child restraint system
shall also provide an information card with the following:
(1) Informing the owner of the importance of registering the child
restraint system; and,
(2) Instructing the owner how to register the CRS.
(3) Manufacturers must provide statements informing the purchaser
that the registration card is pre-addressed and that postage has been
paid.
(4) Manufacturers may provide instructions to register the child
restraint system electronically. If an electronic registration form is
used or referenced, it must meet the requirements of S5.8.2 of this
section.
(5) Manufacturers may optionally provide statements to the owner
explaining that the registration card is not a warranty card, and that
the information collected from the owner will not be used for marketing
purposes
S5.8.2 * * *
(a) Each electronic registration form provided for child restraint
systems manufactured before December 5, 2024, shall:
* * * * *
S5.8.2.1 Upgraded electronic registration form
(a) Each electronic registration form provided for child restraint
systems manufactured on or after December 5, 2024, shall:
(1) Contain statements at the top of the form:
(i) Informing the owner of the importance of registering the CRS;
and,
(ii) Instructing the owner how to register the CRS.
(2) Provide as required registration fields, space for the
purchaser to record the model name or number and date of manufacture
(month, year) of the child restraint system, and space for the
purchaser to record his or her name and mailing address. At the
manufacturer's option, a space is provided for the purchaser to
optionally record his or her email address. At the manufacturer's
option, a space is provided for the purchaser to optionally record his
or her telephone number.
(b) No advertising or other information shall appear on the
electronic registration form. However, manufacturers may optionally
provide a statement to the owner explaining that the registration is
not a warranty card, and that the information collected from the owner
will not be used for marketing purposes.
(c) The electronic registration form may provide information
identifying the manufacturer or a link to the manufacturer's home page,
a field to confirm submission, and a prompt to indicate any incomplete
or invalid fields prior to submission.
(d) If a manufacturer printed the electronic address (in form of a
website (printed URL)) on the attached registration form provided
pursuant to S5.8.1, the electronic registration form shall be accessed
directly by the electronic address. Accessing the electronic address
(in form of a website (printed URL) that contains the electronic
registration form shall not cause additional screens or electronic
banners to appear. In addition to the electronic address in form of a
website, manufacturers may include a code (such as a QR code or
similar) to access the electronic address.
S5.9 * * *
(a) Each add-on child restraint system other than a car bed,
harness and belt-positioning seat, shall have components permanently
attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely
fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage
system specified in Standard No. 225 (Sec. 571.225) and depicted in
Drawing Package SAS-100-1000, Standard Seat Belt Assembly with Addendum
A or in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213,
No. NHTSA-213-2003'' (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5).
The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a
screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing child restraints with
detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components.
* * * * *
S6.1.1 * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The platform is instrumented with an accelerometer and data
processing system having a frequency response of 60 Hz channel
frequency class as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J211/1,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The accelerometer
sensitive axis is parallel to the direction of test platform travel.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(G) All instrumentation and data reduction are in conformance with
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995), ``Instrumentation for Impact
Tests,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5).
* * * * *
S6.1.2 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Except for a child harness, a school bus child restraint
system, and a restraint designed for use by children with physical
disabilities, install the child restraint system at the center seating
position of the standard seat assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), except
that no tether strap (or any other supplemental device) is used.
* * * * *
S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old in belt-positioning seats, Hybrid III
weighted 6-year-old in belt-positioning seats, and Hybrid III 10-year-
old in belt-positioning seats. When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old
(part 572, subpart N), the Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old (part 572,
subpart S), or the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 572, subpart T) in
belt-positioning seats, position the dummy in accordance with S5.6.1 or
S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:
* * * * *

[[Page 84591]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.005

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.006

* * * * *

0
4. Section 571.213b is added to read as follows:

Sec. 571.213b Standard No. 213b; Child restraint systems; Mandatory
applicability beginning December 5, 2026.

S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for child restraint
systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number
of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft.
S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, and to child
restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft, manufactured
on or after December 5, 2026.
S4. Definitions--
Add-on child restraint system means any portable child restraint
system.
Backless child restraint system means a child restraint system,
other than a belt-positioning seat, that consists of a seating platform
that does not extend up to provide a cushion for the child's back or
head and has a structural element designed to restrain forward motion
of the child's torso in a forward impact.
Belt-positioning seat means a child restraint system that positions
a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type 2 belt
system on the

[[Page 84592]]

child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a
structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the
child's torso in a forward impact.
Booster seat means either a backless child restraint system or a
belt-positioning seat.
Built-in child restraint system means a child restraint system that
is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a
motor vehicle.
Car bed means a child restraint system designed to restrain or
position a child in the supine or prone position on a continuous flat
surface.
Child restraint anchorage system is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225
(Sec. 571.225).
Child restraint system means any device, except Type 1 or Type 2
seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to
restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80
lb) or less.
Contactable surface means any child restraint system surface (other
than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may
contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy,
specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance
with S6.1.
Factory-installed built-in child restraint system means a built-in
child restraint system that has been or will be permanently installed
in a motor vehicle before that vehicle is certified as a completed or
altered vehicle in accordance with part 567 of this chapter.
Harness means a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint
system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps,
webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating
structure for the child.
Rear-facing child restraint system means a child restraint system,
except a car bed, that positions a child to face in the direction
opposite to the normal direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
Representative aircraft passenger seat means either a Federal
Aviation Administration approved production aircraft passenger seat or
a simulated aircraft passenger seat conforming to Figure 6.
School bus child restraint system means an add-on child restraint
system (including a harness) manufactured and sold only for use on
school bus seats, that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b).
Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal line
through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1A-1 and 1A-2.
Specific vehicle shell means the actual vehicle model part into
which the built-in child restraint system is or is intended to be
fabricated, including the complete surroundings of the built-in system.
If the built-in child restraint system is or is intended to be
fabricated as part of any seat other than a front seat, these
surroundings include the back of the seat in front, the interior rear
side door panels and trim, the floor pan, adjacent pillars (e.g., the B
and C pillars), and the ceiling. If the built-in system is or is
intended to be fabricated as part of the front seat, these surroundings
include the dashboard, the steering mechanism and its associated trim
hardware, any levers and knobs installed on the floor or on a console,
the interior front side door panels and trim, the front seat, the floor
pan, the A pillars and the ceiling.
Tether anchorage is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec. 571.225).
Tether hook is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec. 571.225).
Tether strap is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec. 571.225).
Torso means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic
test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the
child restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of
the test dummy.
S5. Requirements. (a) Each motor vehicle with a built-in child
restraint system shall meet the requirements in this section when, as
specified, tested in accordance with S6.1 and this paragraph.
(b)(1) Each child restraint system manufactured for use in motor
vehicles shall meet the requirements in this section when, as
specified, tested in accordance with S6.1 and this paragraph. Each add-
on system shall meet the requirements at each of the restraint's seat
back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions,
when the restraint is oriented in the direction recommended by the
manufacturer (e.g., forward, rearward or laterally) pursuant to S5.6,
and tested with the test dummy specified in S7.
(2) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) regardless of height,
or for children in a height range that includes heights up to 1100
millimeters (mm) regardless of weight, shall meet the requirements in
this standard and the applicable side impact protection requirements in
Standard No. 213a (Sec. 571.213a).
(c) Each child restraint system manufactured for use in aircraft
shall meet the requirements in this section and the additional
requirements in S8.
(d) Each child restraint system tested with a part 572 subpart S
dummy need not meet S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.
(e) Each child restraint system tested with a part 572 subpart T
dummy need not meet S5.1.2.1(a).
(f) Each child restraint system that is equipped with an internal
harness or other internal components to restrain the child need not
meet this standard when attached to the lower anchors of the child
restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly if the sum of
the weight of the child restraint system (in pounds) and the average
weight of child represented by the test dummy used to test the child
restraint system in accordance with S7 of this standard, shown in the
table below, exceeds 65 pounds. Such a child restraint system must meet
this standard when tested using its internal harness or components to
restrain such a test dummy while installed using the means of
installation specified in S5.3.2 of this standard.

Table 1 to S5(f)--Average Weight of Child Represented by Various Test
Dummies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average weight
of child
Test dummy (specified in S7 of this standard) represented by
test dummy
(pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRABI 12-month-old infant dummy (49 CFR Part 572, 22
Subpart R).............................................
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart P) 31
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N) 45
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR Part 572 62
Subpart S).............................................
Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy (49, CFR Part 572, Subpart I) 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that
includes weights less than 18 kilograms (40 pounds) regardless of
height, or for children in a height range that includes heights less
than 1100 millimeters regardless of weight, shall meet the requirements
in this standard and the applicable side impact protection requirements
in Standard No. 213a (Sec. 571.213a).
S5.1 Dynamic performance.
S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance

[[Page 84593]]

with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a
radius of less than \1/4\ inch or surfaces with protrusions greater
than \3/8\ inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable
surface of any structural element of the system.
(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same
adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately
before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2).
(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a rear-
facing child restraint system may have a means for repositioning the
seating surface of the system that allows the system's occupant to move
from a reclined position to an upright position and back to a reclined
position during testing.
(ii) No opening that is exposed and is larger than \1/4\ inch
before the testing shall become smaller during the testing as a result
of the movement of the seating surface relative to the restraint system
as a whole.
(c) If a front facing child restraint system, not allow the angle
between the system's back support surfaces for the child and the
system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion
of the test.
S5.1.2 Injury criteria.
S5.1.2.1 When tested in accordance with S6.1 and with the test
dummies specified in S7, each child restraint system shall:
(a) Limit the resultant acceleration at the location of the
accelerometer mounted in the test dummy head such that, for any two
points in time, t1 and t2, during the event which are separated by not
more than a 36 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less than t2,
the maximum calculated head injury criterion (HIC36) shall not exceed
1,000, determined using the resultant head acceleration at the center
of gravity of the dummy head, a, expressed as a multiple of g (the
acceleration of gravity), calculated using the expression below. The
HIC calculation shall be calculated within the first 175 milliseconds
of the sled acceleration that is within the acceleration corridor in
Figure 2, when testing with the HIII-6YO dummy in a backless child
restraint system.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.007

(b) The resultant acceleration calculated from the output of the
thoracic instrumentation shall not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals
whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds.
S5.1.2.2 [Reserved.]
S5.1.3 Occupant excursion. When tested in accordance with S6.1 and
the requirements specified in this section, each child restraint system
shall meet the applicable excursion limit requirements specified in
S5.1.3.1-S5.1.3.3.
S5.1.3.1 Child restraint systems other than rear-facing ones and
car beds. Each child restraint system, other than a rear-facing child
restraint system or a car bed, shall retain the test dummy's torso
within the system.
(a) For each add-on child restraint system:
(1) No portion of the test dummy's head shall pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 mm (as specified in the
table in this S5.1.3.1) forward of point Z on the standard seat
assembly, measured along the center SORL (as illustrated in figure 1B-1
and 1B-2 of this standard); and
(2) Neither knee pivot point shall pass through a vertical
transverse plane that is 915 mm forward of point Z on the standard seat
assembly, measured along the center SORL.

Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used Forward-Facing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: in the
test specified in 2nd
column, the excursion
requirement must be met
When this type of child restraint Is tested in These excursion limits when the child restraint
system accordance with-- apply system is attached to the
test seat assembly in the
manner described below,
subject to certain
conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses and restraints designed S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
for use by children with physical mm. shoulder belt; in
disabilities. addition, if a tether is
provided, it is attached.
School bus child restraint systems. S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with seat back
mm. mount, or seat back and
seat pan mounts.
Booster seats...................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii)...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
mm. shoulder belt; no tether
is attached.
Child restraint systems other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap belt;
harnesses, restraints designed for mm. without a tether attached.
use by children with physical Attached with a lap and
disabilities, school bus child shoulder belt; without a
restraint systems, and booster tether attached.
seats. Attached to lower
anchorages of child
restraint anchorage
system; without a tether
attached.

[[Page 84594]]

Child restraint systems other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), Head 720 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap belt,
harnesses, restraints designed for S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). mm. with a tether attached.
use by children with physical Attached with a lap and
disabilities, school bus child shoulder belt, with a
restraint systems. tether attached.
Attached to lower
anchorages of child
restraint anchorage
system, with a tether
attached.
Child restraint systems equipped S6.1.2(a)(2).......... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt or
with a fixed or movable surface mm. lap and shoulder belt or
described in S5.2.2.2 that has lower anchorages of child
belts that are not an integral restraint anchorage
part of that fixed or movable system; no tether is
surface. attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) In the case of a built-in child restraint system, neither knee
pivot point shall, at any time during the dynamic test, pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 305 mm forward of the initial pre-
test position of the respective knee pivot point, measured along a
horizontal line that passes through the knee pivot point and is
parallel to the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
S5.1.3.2 Rear-facing child restraint systems. In the case of each
rear-facing child restraint system, all portions of the test dummy's
torso shall be retained within the system and neither of the target
points on either side of the dummy's head and on the transverse axis
passing through the center of mass of the dummy's head and
perpendicular to the head's midsagittal plane, shall pass through the
transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains the forward-
most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces
(illustrated in Figure 1C in this section).
S5.1.3.3 Car beds. In the case of car beds, all portions of the
test dummy's head and torso shall be retained within the confines of
the car bed.
S5.1.4 Back support angle. When a rear-facing child restraint
system is tested in accordance with S6.1, the angle between the
system's back support surface for the child and the vertical shall not
exceed 70 degrees.
S5.2 Force distribution.
S5.2.1 Minimum head support surface--child restraint systems other
than car beds.
S5.2.1.1 Except as provided in S5.2.1.2, each child restraint
system other than a car bed shall provide restraint against rearward
movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child)
by means of a continuous seat back which is an integral part of the
system and which--
(a) Has a height, measured along the system seat back surface for
the child in the vertical longitudinal plane passing through the
longitudinal centerline of the child restraint systems from the lowest
point on the system seating surface that is contacted by the buttocks
of the seated dummy, as follows:

Table 3 to S5.2.1.1(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight \1\ Height \2\(mm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not more than 18 kg..................................... 500
More than 18 kg......................................... 560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When a child restraint system is recommended under S5.5 for use by
children of the above weights.
\2\ The height of the portion of the system seat back providing head
restraint shall not be less than the above.

(b) Has a width of not less than 8 inches, measured in the
horizontal plane at the height specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. Except that a child restraint system with side supports
extending at least 4 inches forward from the padded surface of the
portion of the restraint system provided for support of the child's
head may have a width of not less than 6 inches, measured in the
horizontal plane at the height specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) Limits the rearward rotation of the test dummy head so that the
angle between the head and torso of the dummy specified in S7 when
tested in accordance with S6.1 is not more than 45 degrees greater than
the angle between the head and torso after the dummy has been placed in
the system in accordance with S6.1.2.3 and before the system is tested
in accordance with S6.1.
S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a
front-facing child restraint system, and the conformance of any child
restraint system other than a car bed to those requirements, is
determined using the largest of the test dummies specified in S7 for
use in testing that restraint, provided that the 6-year-old dummy
described in subpart I or subpart N of part 572 of this title and the
10-year-old dummy described in subpart T of part 572 of this title, are
not used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1.
A front facing child restraint system is not required to comply with
S5.2.1.1 if the target point on either side of the dummy's head is
below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of--
(a) The standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-on child
restraint system, when the dummy is positioned in the system and the
system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2.
(b) The vehicle seat, in the case of a built-in child restraint
system, when the system is activated and the dummy is positioned in the
system in accordance with S6.1.2.
S5.2.2 Torso impact protection. Each child restraint system other
than a car bed shall comply with the applicable requirements of
S5.2.2.1 and S5.2.2.2.
S5.2.2.1 (a) The system surface provided for the support of the
child's back shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface
area of not less than 85 square inches.
(b) Each system surface provided for support of the side of the
child's torso shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface of
not less than 24 square inches for systems recommended for children
weighing 20 pounds or more, or 48 square inches for systems recommended
for children weighing less than 20 pounds.

[[Page 84595]]

(c) Each horizontal cross section of each system surface designed
to restrain forward movement of the child's torso shall be flat or
concave and each vertical longitudinal cross section shall be flat or
convex with a radius of curvature of the underlying structure of not
less than 2 inches.
S5.2.2.2 Each forward-facing child restraint system shall have no
fixed or movable surface--
(a) Directly forward of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal
line--
(1) Parallel to the SORL, in the case of the add-on child restraint
system, or
(2) Parallel to a vertical plane through the longitudinal center
line of the vehicle seat, in the case of a built-in child restraint
system, and,
(b) Passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces
which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with
S6.1.2(a)(2), so that the child restraint system shall conform to the
requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.
S5.2.3 [Reserved]
S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural
component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of
a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of
S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material
removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system
surface of not more than \3/8\ inch and no exposed edge with a radius
of less than \1/4\ inch.
S5.3 Installation.
S5.3.1 Add-on child restraint systems shall meet either (a) or (b),
as appropriate.
(a) Except for components designed to attach to a child restraint
anchorage system, each add-on child restraint system must not have any
means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or
vehicle seat back and any component (except belts) that is designed to
be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back.
(b) School bus child restraint systems (including harnesses
manufactured for use on school bus seats) must have a label that
conforms in content to Figure 12 and to the requirements of
S5.3.1(b)(1) through S5.3.1(b)(3) of this standard. The label must be
permanently affixed to the part of the school bus child restraint
system, that attaches the system to a vehicle seat back.
(1) The label must be plainly visible when installed and easily
readable.
(2) The message area must be white with black text. The message
area must be no less than 20 square centimeters.
(3) The pictogram shall be gray and black with a red circle and
slash on a white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 20 mm
in diameter.
(c) The provision that add-on child restraint systems shall meet
the requirements of this standard when installed solely by a Type 1
belt applies to child restraint systems manufactured before September
1, 2029. Except for harnesses, the requirement sunsets for child
restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2029. For
harnesses, the requirement does not sunset and continues to apply to
harnesses manufactured on or after September 1, 2029.
S5.3.2 Each add-on child restraint system shall be capable of
meeting the requirements of this standard when installed solely by each
of the means indicated in the following table for the particular type
of child restraint system:

Table 4 for S5.3.2 Means of Installation for Child Restraint Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat
Lower back
Type 1 seat Type 2 seat anchorages Lower mount,
Type of add-on belt assembly Type 1 seat belt assembly Type 2 of the child anchorages or, seat
child restraint plus a tether belt plus a tether seat belt restraint of the child back
system anchorage, if assembly anchorage, if assembly anchorage restraint mount,
needed needed system plus anchorage and,
a tether, if system seat pan
needed mount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus child ............. ........... ............. .......... ............ ............ X
restraint systems
Harnesses X ........... ............. .......... ............ ............ ........
Car beds ............. X ............. X ............ ............ ........
Rear-facing ............. X ............. X ............ X ........
restraints
Booster seats ............. ........... ............. X ............ ............ ........
All other child X X X X X X ........
restraint systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S5.3.3 Car beds. Each car bed shall be designed to be installed on
a vehicle seat so that the car bed's longitudinal axis is perpendicular
to a vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal axis of the
vehicle.
S5.4 Belts, belt buckles, and belt webbing.
S5.4.1 Performance requirements.
S5.4.1.1 [Reserved.]
S5.4.1.2 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 vehicle, including 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
when tested in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209. Each value shall
be not less than the 15,000 N and 11,000 N applicable breaking strength
requirements, but the median value shall be used for determining the
retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) and (2)
of this section. ``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 75 percent of the new webbing strength, 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, including webbing to
secure a child restraint system to the tether and lower anchorages of a
child restraint anchorage system, except that a mass of 1.5 .05 kg shall be used for webbing in pelvic and upper torso
restraints of a

[[Page 84596]]

belt assembly used in a child restraint 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 60 percent of the new webbing, and
shall have a color retention not less than No. 2 on the AATCC Gray
Scale for Color Change (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5).
(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 85 percent of the new webbing.
(d) If contactable by the test dummy torso when the system is
tested in accordance with S6.1, have a width of not less than 1\1/2\
inches when measured in accordance with S5.4.1.3.
S5.4.1.3 Width test procedure. Condition the webbing for 24 hours
in an atmosphere of any relative humidity between 48 and 67 percent,
and any ambient temperature between 70[deg] and 77 [deg]F. Measure belt
webbing width under a tension of 5 pounds applied lengthwise.
S5.4.2 Belt buckles and belt adjustment hardware. Each belt buckle
and item of belt adjustment hardware used in a child restraint system
shall conform to the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No.
209 (Sec. 571.209).
S5.4.3 Belt Restraint.
S5.4.3.1 General. Each belt that is part of a child restraint
system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system shall
be adjustable to snugly fit any child whose height and weight are
within the ranges recommended in accordance with S5.5.2(f) and who is
positioned in the system in accordance with the instructions required
by S5.6.
S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for belt-positioning seats, each
belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to
restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the
vehicle, and each Type 1 and lap portion of a Type 2 vehicle belt that
is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in
accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the
mass of the system, or--
(a) In the case of an add-on child restraint system, from the mass
of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S6.1, or
(b) In the case of a built-in child restraint system, from the mass
of any part of the vehicle into which the child restraint system is
built.
S5.4.3.3 Seating systems. Except for child restraint systems
subject to S5.4.3.4, each child restraint system that is designed for
use by a child in a seated position and that has belts designed to
restrain the child, shall, with the test dummy specified in S7
positioned in the system in accordance with S10 provide:
(a) Upper torso restraint in the form of:
(i) Belts passing over each shoulder of the child, or
(ii) A fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c), and
(b) Lower torso restraint in the form of:
(i) A lap belt assembly making an angle between 45[deg] and 90[deg]
with the child restraint system seating surface at the lap belt
attachment points, or
(ii) A fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c), and
(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children
whose masses are more than 10 kg, crotch restraint in the form of:
(i) A crotch belt connectable to the lap belt or other device used
to restrain the lower torso, or
(ii) A fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).
S5.4.3.4 Harnesses. Each child harness shall:
(a) Provide upper torso restraint, including belts passing over
each shoulder of the child;
(b) Provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt;
and
(c) Prevent a child of any height for which the restraint is
recommended for use pursuant to S5.5.2(f) from standing upright on the
vehicle seat when the child is placed in the device in accordance with
the instructions required by S5.6.
S5.4.3.5 Buckle release. Any buckle in a child restraint system
belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall:
(a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test
of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 40 newtons (N) is
applied and shall release when a force of not more than 62 N is
applied;
(b) After the dynamic test of S6.1, when tested in accordance with
the appropriate sections of S6.2, release when a force of not more than
71 N is applied, provided, however, that the conformance of any child
restraint system to this requirement is determined using the largest of
the test dummies specified in S7 for use in testing that restraint when
the restraint is facing forward, rearward, and/or laterally;
(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (Sec.
571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint
system buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square
inch;
(d) Meet the requirements of S4.3(g) of FMVSS No. 209 (Sec.
571.209) when tested in accordance with S5.2(g) of FMVSS No. 209; and
(e) Not release during the testing specified in S6.1.
S5.5 Labeling. Any labels or written instructions provided in
addition to those required by this section shall not obscure or confuse
the meaning of the required information or be otherwise misleading to
the consumer. Any labels or written instructions other than in the
English language shall be an accurate translation of English labels or
written instructions.
S5.5.1 Each add-on child restraint system shall be permanently
labeled with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (m).
S5.5.2 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) of
this section shall be stated in the English language and lettered in
letters and numbers that are not smaller than 10 point type. Unless
otherwise specified, the information shall be labeled on a white
background with black text. Unless written in all capitals, the
information shall be stated in sentence capitalization.
(a) The model name or number of the system.
(b) The manufacturer's name. A distributor's name may be used
instead if the distributor assumes responsibility for all duties and
liabilities imposed on the manufacturer with respect to the system by
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.
(c) The statement: ``Manufactured in __,'' inserting the month and
year of manufacture.
(d) The place of manufacture (city and State, or foreign country).
However, if the manufacturer uses the name of the distributor, then it
shall state the location (city and State, or foreign country) of the
principal offices of the distributor.
(e) The statement: ``This child restraint system conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.''
(f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the weight and height
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward-facing,
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend that child restraint
systems with internal harnesses be used forward-facing with children of
weights less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not

[[Page 84597]]

recommend that booster seats be used by children of weights less than
18.4 kg (40 lb).
(g) The statements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2):
(1) A heading as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i), with the statement
``WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur,'' capitalized as written
and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:
(i) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by
5.5.2(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), 5.5.2(j),
and 5.5.2(i).
(ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint
anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds,
harnesses, and belt-positioning seats, the first part of the statement
regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is
optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.]
Child restraint systems equipped with internal harnesses to restrain
the child and with components to attach to a child restraint anchorage
system and for which the combined weight of the child restraint system
and the maximum recommended child weight for use with internal
harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, must be labeled with the following
statement: ``Do not use the lower anchors of the child restraint
anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child restraint when
restraining a child weighing more than * [*insert a recommended weight
value in English and metric units such that the sum of the recommended
weight value and the weight of the child restraint system does not
exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the internal harnesses of the child
restraint.''
(iii) Follow all instructions on this child restraint and in the
written instructions located (insert storage location on the restraint
for the manufacturer's installation instruction booklet or sheet).
(iv) Register your child restraint with the manufacturer.
(2) At the manufacturer's option, the phrase ``DEATH or SERIOUS
INJURY can occur'' in the heading can be on either a white or yellow
background.
(3) More than one label may be used for the required bulleted
statements. Multiple labels shall be placed one above the other unless
that arrangement is precluded by insufficient space or shape of the
child restraint system. In that case, multiple labels shall be placed
side by side. When using multiple labels, the mandated warnings must be
in the correct order when read from top to bottom. If the labels are
side-by-side, then the mandated warnings must appear top to bottom of
the leftmost label, then top to bottom of the next label to its right,
and so on. There shall be no intervening labels and the required
heading shall only appear on the first label in the sequence.
(h) In the case of each child restraint system that has belts
designed to restrain children using them and which do not adjust
automatically to fit the child: Snugly adjust the belts provided with
this child restraint around your child.
(i)(1) For a booster seat that is recommended for use with either a
vehicle's Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, one of the following
statements, as appropriate:
(i) Use only the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system when
restraining the child in this booster seat; or,
(ii) Use only the vehicle's lap belt system, or the lap belt part
of a lap/shoulder belt system with the shoulder belt placed behind the
child, when restraining the child in this seat.
(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section,
for a booster seat which is recommended for use with both a vehicle's
Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies, the following statement: Use
only the vehicle's lap belt system, or the lap belt part of a lap/
shoulder belt system with the shoulder belt placed behind the child,
when restraining the child with the (insert description of the system
element provided to restrain forward movement of the child's torso when
used with a lap belt (e.g., shield)), and only the vehicle's lap and
shoulder belt system when using the booster without the (insert above
description).
(ii) A booster seat which is recommended for use with both a
vehicle's Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies is not subject to
S5.5.2(i)(2)(i) if, when the booster is used with the shield or similar
component, the booster will cause the shoulder belt to be located in a
position other than in front of the child when the booster is
installed. However, such a booster shall be labeled with a warning to
use the booster with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system when
using the booster without a shield.
(j) In the case of each child restraint system equipped with a top
anchorage strap, the statement: Secure the top anchorage strap provided
with this child restraint.
(k)(1) In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system that
is designed for infants only, the statement: Use only in a rear-facing
position when using it in the vehicle.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Except as provided in (k)(4) of this section, each child
restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position shall have
a label that conforms in content to Figure 10 and to the requirements
of S5.5.2(k)(3)(i) through S5.5.2(k)(3)(iii) of this standard
permanently affixed to the outer surface of the cushion or padding in
or adjacent to the area where a child's head would rest, so that the
label is plainly visible and easily readable.
(i) The heading area shall be yellow with the word ``warning'' and
the alert symbol in black.
(ii) The message area shall be white with black text. The message
area shall be no less than 30 square cm.
(iii) The pictogram shall be black with a red circle and slash on a
white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 30 mm in
diameter.
(4) If a child restraint system is equipped with a device that
deactivates the passenger-side air bag in a vehicle when and only when
the child restraint is installed in the vehicle and provides a signal,
for at least 60 seconds after deactivation, that the air bag is
deactivated, the label specified in Figure 10 may include the phrase
``unless air bag is off'' after ``on front seat with air bag.''
(1) An installation diagram showing the child restraint system
installed in:
(1) A seating position equipped with a continuous-loop lap/shoulder
belt;
(2) For child restraint systems manufactured before September 1,
2029, a seating position equipped with only a lap belt, as specified in
the manufacturer's instructions; and
(3) A seating position equipped with a child restraint anchorage
system. For child restraint systems the following paragraphs (l)(3)(i)
and (ii) of this section apply, as appropriate.
(i) If the child restraint system is designed to meet the
requirements of this standard when installed by the child restraint
anchorage system according to S5.3.2, and if the sum of the weight of
the child restraint system and the maximum child weight recommended for
the child restraint system when used with the restraint's internal
harness or components is greater than 65 lb when used forward-facing or
rear-facing, include the following statement on this installation
diagram: ``Do not install by this method for a child weighing more than
*.'' At the manufacturer's option, ``*'' is the child weight limit in
English units in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C). The
corresponding child weight limit in metric units may also be

[[Page 84598]]

included in the statement at the manufacturer's option.
(A) For forward-facing and rear-facing child restraint systems, *
is less than or equal to 65 minus child restraint system weight
(pounds).
(B) For forward-facing child restraint systems, * is the child
weight limit specified in the following table corresponding to the
value CW, calculated as 65 minus child restraint system weight
(pounds).

Table 5 to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(B)--Maximum Child Weight Limit for Lower
Anchor Use for Forward-Facing Child Restraint System--Rounding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child weight
CW = 65 - child restraint system weight (pounds) limit ``*''
(pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 < CW <= 25........................................... 25
25 < CW <= 30........................................... 30
30 < CW <= 35........................................... 35
35 < CW <= 40........................................... 40
40 < CW <= 45........................................... 45
45 < CW <= 50........................................... 50
50 < CW <= 55........................................... 55
55 < CW <= 60........................................... 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) For rear-facing child restraint systems, * is the child weight
limit specified in the following table corresponding to the value CW,
calculated as 60 minus child restraint system weight (pounds).

Table 6 to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(C)--Maximum Child Weight Limit for Lower
Anchor Use for Rear-Facing Child Restraint System--Rounding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child weight
CW = 60 - child restraint system weight (pounds) limit ``*''
(pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 < CW <= 20........................................... 20
20 < CW <= 25........................................... 25
25 < CW <= 30........................................... 30
30 < CW <= 35........................................... 35
35 < CW <= 40........................................... 40
40 < CW <= 45........................................... 45
45 < CW <= 50........................................... 50
50 < CW <= 55........................................... 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) For child restraint systems designed to meet the requirements
of this standard when installed forward-facing and rear-facing using
the child restraint anchorage system according to S5.3.2, the following
applies:
(A) If separate installation diagrams are provided for the child
restraint system installed forward-facing and rear-facing,
S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) applies to each of the installation diagrams.
(B) If only one installation diagram is provided and if a statement
specifying a child weight limit is required in only rear-facing or
forward-facing mode pursuant to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i), then the diagram shall
depict installation in that mode along with the corresponding child
weight limit in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i).
(C) If a statement specifying a child weight limit is required for
the child restraint system installed forward-facing and rear-facing
pursuant to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) and only one installation diagram is
provided, then the child weight limit shall be in accordance with
S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A) or the lesser of the child weight limits described
in S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(B) and (C).
(m) Statements informing the owner of the importance of registering
the child restraint system for recall purposes and instructing the
owner how to register the child restraint system at least by both mail
and telephone, providing a U.S. telephone number. The following
statement must also be provided: ``For recall information, call the
U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-
424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
(n) Child restraint systems, other than belt-positioning seats,
harnesses and backless child restraint systems, may be certified as
complying with the provisions of S8. Child restraint systems that are
so certified shall be labeled with the statement ``This Restraint is
Certified for Use in Motor Vehicles and Aircraft.'' Belt-positioning
seats, harnesses and backless child restraint systems shall be labeled
with the statement ``This Restraint is Not Certified for Use in
Aircraft.'' The statement required by this paragraph shall be in red
lettering and shall be placed after the certification statement
required by S5.5.2(e).
S5.5.3 The information specified in S5.5.2(f) through (l) shall be
located on the add-on child restraint system so that it is visible when
the system is installed as specified in S5.6.1, except that for child
restraint systems with a detachable base, the installation diagrams
specified in S5.5.2(l) are required to be visible only when the base
alone is installed.
S5.5.4 (a) Each built-in child restraint system other than a
factory-installed built-in restraint shall be permanently labeled with
the information specified in S5.5.5 (a) through (l). The information
specified in S5.5.5(a) through (j) and in S5.5.5(l) shall be visible
when the system is activated for use.
(b) Each factory-installed built-in child restraint system shall be
permanently labeled with the information specified in S5.5.5(f) through
(j) and S5.5.5(l), so that the information is visible when the
restraint is activated for use. The information shall also be included
in the vehicle owner's manual.
S5.5.5 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (l) of
this section that is required by S5.5.4 for the built-in child
restraint systems shall be in English and lettered in letters and
numbers using a not smaller than 10-point type. Unless specified
otherwise, the information shall be labeled on a white background with
black text. Unless written in all capitals, the information shall be
stated in sentence capitalization.
(a) The model name or number of the system.
(b) The manufacturer's name. A distributor's or dealer's name may
be used instead if the distributor or dealer assumes responsibility for
all duties and liabilities imposed on the manufacturer with respect to
the system by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as
amended.
(c) The statement: ``Manufactured in ____,'' inserting the month
and year of manufacture.
(d) The place of manufacture (city and State, or foreign country).
However, if the manufacturer uses the name of the distributor or
dealer, then it shall state the location (city and State, or foreign
country) of the principal offices of the distributor or dealer.
(e) The statement: ``This child restraint system conforms to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.''
(f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the weight and height
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward-facing,
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend forward-facing child
restraint systems with internal harnesses for children of weights less
than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend booster seats for
children of weights less than 18.4 kg (40 lb).
(g) The heading and statement specified in paragraph (1), and if
appropriate, the statements in paragraph (2) and (3). If used, the
statements in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be bulleted and precede the
bulleted statement required by paragraph (1) after the heading.
(1) A heading as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i), with the statement
``WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur,'' capitalized as written
and followed by the bulleted

[[Page 84599]]

statement: Follow all instructions on the child restraint and in the
vehicle's owner's manual. At the manufacturer's option, the phrase
``DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur'' in the heading can be on either a
white or yellow background.
(2) In the case of each built-in child restraint system which is
not intended for use in motor vehicles in certain adjustment positions
or under certain circumstances, an appropriate statement of the
manufacturers restrictions regarding those positions or circumstances.
(3) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by
5.5.5(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.5(g)(2), 5.5.5(f), S5.5.5(h)
and S5.5.5(i).
(h) In the case of each built-in child restraint system that has
belts designed to restrain children using them and which do not adjust
automatically to fit the child: Snugly adjust the belts provided with
this child restraint around your child.
(i) In the case of each built-in child restraint which can be used
in a rear-facing position, the following statement: Place an infant in
a rear-facing position in this child restraint.
(j) A diagram or diagrams showing the fully activated child
restraint system in infant and/or child configurations.
(k) One of the following statements, inserting an address and a
U.S. telephone number. If a manufacturer opts to provide a website on
the registration card as permitted in Figure 9a of this section, the
manufacturer must include the statement in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section:
(1) ``Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You
must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name,
address, email address if available (preceding four words are
optional), and the restraint's model number and manufacturing date to
(insert address) or call (insert a U.S. telephone number). For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to http://www.NHTSA.gov.''
(2) ``Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You
must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name,
address, email address if available (preceding four words are
optional), and the restraint's model number and manufacturing date to
(insert address) or call (insert telephone number) or register online
at (insert website for electronic registration form). For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to http://www.NHTSA.gov.''
(l) In the case of a built-in belt-positioning seat that uses
either the vehicle's Type 1 or Type 2 belt systems or both, a statement
describing the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum height
and weight of children who can safely occupy the system and how the
booster should be used (e.g., with or without shield) with the
different vehicle belt systems.
S5.6 Printed instructions for proper use. Any labels or written
instructions provided in addition to those required by this section
shall not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or
be otherwise misleading to the consumer. Any labels or written
instructions other than in the English language shall be an accurate
translation of English labels or written instructions. Unless written
in all capitals, the information required by S5.6.1 through S5.6.3
shall be stated in sentence capitalization.
S5.6.1 Add-on child restraint systems. Each add-on child restraint
system shall be accompanied by printed installation instructions in
English that provide a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for
installing the system in motor vehicles, securing the system in the
vehicles, positioning a child in the system, and adjusting the system
to fit the child. For each child restraint system that has components
for attaching to a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage
system, the installation instructions shall include a step-by-step
procedure, including diagrams, for properly attaching to that anchorage
or system.
S5.6.1.1 In a vehicle with rear designated seating positions, the
instructions shall alert vehicle owners that, according to accident
statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear
seating positions than in the front seating positions.
S5.6.1.2 The instructions shall specify in general terms the types
of vehicles, the types of seating positions, and the types of vehicle
seat belts with which the add-on child restraint system can or cannot
be used.
S5.6.1.3 The instructions shall explain the primary consequences of
not following the warnings required to be labeled on the child
restraint system in accordance with S5.5.2(g) through (k).
S5.6.1.4 The instructions for each car bed shall explain that the
car bed should be positioned in such a way that the child's head is
near the center of the vehicle.
S5.6.1.5 The instructions shall state that add-on child restraint
systems should be securely belted to the vehicle, even when they are
not occupied, since in a crash an unsecured child restraint system may
injure other occupants.
S5.6.1.6 Each add-on child restraint system shall have a location
on the restraint for storing the manufacturer's instructions.
S5.6.1.7 Child restraint systems shall include statements informing
the owner of the importance of registering the child restraint system
for recall purposes and instructing the owner how to register the child
restraint system at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S.
telephone number. The following statement must also be provided: ``For
recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline
at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
S5.6.1.8 In the case of each child restraint system that can be
used in a position so that it is facing the rear of the vehicle, the
instructions shall provide a warning against using restraints rear-
facing at seating positions equipped with air bags, and shall explain
the reasons for, and consequences of not following the warning. The
instructions shall also include a statement that owners of vehicles
with front passenger-side air bags should refer to their vehicle
owner's manual for child restraint system installation instructions.
S5.6.1.9 In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system
that has a means for repositioning the seating surface of the system
that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined position to
an upright position during dynamic testing, the instructions shall
include a warning against impeding the ability of the restraint to
change adjustment position.
S5.6.1.10 (a) For instructions for a booster seat that is
recommended for use with either a vehicle's Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt
assembly, one of the following statements, as appropriate, and the
reasons for the statement:
(1) Warning! Use only the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system
when restraining the child in this booster seat; or,
(2) Warning! Use only the vehicle's lap belt system, or the lap
belt part of a lap/shoulder belt system with the shoulder belt placed
behind the child, when restraining the child in this seat.
(b)(1) Except as provided in S5.6.1.10(b)(2), the instructions for
a booster seat that is recommended for use with both a vehicle's Type 1
and Type 2 seat belt assemblies shall include the following statement
and the reasons therefor: Warning! Use only the vehicle's lap belt
system, or the lap belt

[[Page 84600]]

part of a lap/shoulder belt system with the shoulder belt placed behind
the child, when restraining the child with the (insert description of
the system element provided to restrain forward movement of the child's
torso when used with a lap belt (e.g., shield)), and only the vehicle's
lap and shoulder belt system when using this booster without the
(insert above description).
(2) A booster seat which is recommended for use with both a
vehicle's Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies is not subject to
S5.6.1.10(b)(1) if, when the booster is used with the shield or similar
component, the booster will cause the shoulder belt to be located in a
position other than in front of the child when the booster is
installed. However, the instructions for such a booster shall include a
warning to use the booster with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt
system when using the booster without a shield.
(c) The instructions for belt-positioning seats shall include the
statement, ``This restraint is not certified for aircraft use,'' and
the reasons for this statement.
S5.6.1.11 For school bus child restraint systems, the instructions
must include the following statement:
``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats.
Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained
occupants.'' (The instruction's reference to a ``restrained occupant''
refers to an occupant restrained by any user-appropriate vehicle
restraint or child restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder
belt, booster seat or other child restraint system.)
S5.6.1.12 If the child restraint system is designed to meet the
requirements of this standard when installed by the child restraint
anchorage system according to S5.3.2, the installation diagram showing
the child restraint system installed using a child restraint anchorage
system must meet the specifications in S5.5.2(l)(3).
S5.6.2 Built-in child restraint systems. (a) Each built-in child
restraint system shall be accompanied by printed instructions in
English that provide a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for
activating the restraint system, positioning a child in the system,
adjusting the restraint and, if provided, the restraint harness to fit
the child. The instructions for each built-in car bed shall explain
that the child should be positioned in the bed in such a way that the
child's head is near the center of the vehicle.
(b) Each motor vehicle equipped with a factory-installed built-in
child restraint system shall have the information specified in
paragraph (a) of this section included in its vehicle owner's manual.
S5.6.2.1 The instructions shall explain the primary consequences of
not following the manufacturer's warnings for proper use of the child
restraint system in accordance with S5.5.5(f) through (i).
S5.6.2.2 The instructions for each built-in child restraint system
other than a factory-installed restraint shall include statements
informing the owner of the importance of registering the child
restraint system for recall purposes and instructing the owner how to
register the child restraint system at least by mail and by telephone,
providing a U.S. telephone number. The following statement must also be
provided: ``For recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle
Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to
www.NHTSA.gov.''
S5.6.2.3 Each built-in child restraint system other than a factory-
installed built-in restraint, shall have a location on the restraint
for storing the instructions.
S5.6.2.4 Each built-in child restraint system, other than a system
that has been installed in a vehicle or a factory-installed built-in
system that is designed for a specific vehicle model and seating
position, shall be accompanied by instructions in English that provide
a step-by-step procedure for installing the system in a motor vehicle.
The instructions shall specify the types of vehicles and the seating
positions into which the restraint can or cannot be installed. The
instructions for each car bed shall explain that the bed should be
installed so that the child's head will be near the center of the
vehicle.
S5.6.2.5 In the case of a built-in belt-positioning seat that uses
either the vehicle's Type 1 or Type 2 belt systems or both, the
instructions shall include a statement describing the manufacturer's
recommendations for the maximum height and weight of children who can
safely occupy the system and how the booster must be used with the
vehicle belt systems appropriate for the booster seat. The instructions
shall explain the consequences of not following the directions. The
instructions shall specify that, if the booster seat is recommended for
use with only the lap-belt part of a Type 2 assembly, the shoulder belt
portion of the assembly must be placed behind the child.
S5.6.3 Add-on and built-in child restraint systems. In the case of
each child restraint system that has belts designed to restrain
children using them and which do not adjust automatically to fit the
child, the printed instructions shall include the following statement:
A snug strap should not allow any slack. It lies in a relatively
straight line without sagging. It does not press on the child's flesh
or push the child's body into an unnatural position.
S5.7 Flammability. Each material used in a child restraint system
shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302 (571.302). In
the case of a built-in child restraint system, the requirements of S4
of FMVSS No. 302 shall be met in both the ``in-use'' and ``stowed''
positions.
S5.8 Information requirements--attached registration form and
electronic registration form.
S5.8.1 Attached registration form. (a) Each child restraint system,
except a factory-installed built-in restraint system, shall have a
registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that
contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system in
accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. The form shall not have
advertising or any information other than that related to registering
the child restraint system.
(b) Each attached registration form shall provide a mail-in
postcard that conforms in size, and in basic content and format to the
forms depicted in Figures 9a' and 9b' of this section.
(1) The mail-in postcard shall:
(i) Have a thickness of at least 0.007 inches and not more than
0.0095 inches;
(ii) Be pre-printed with the information identifying the child
restraint system for recall purposes, such as the model name or number
and date of manufacture (month, year) of the child restraint system to
which the form is attached;
(iii) Contain space for the owner to record his or her name,
mailing address, email address (optional), telephone number (optional)
and other pertinent information;
(iv) Be addressed to the manufacturer, and be postage paid.
(v) Be detachable from the information card without the use of
scissors or other tools.
(c) The registration form attached to the child restraint system
shall also provide an information card with the following:
(1) Informing the owner of the importance of registering the child
restraint system; and,
(2) Instructing the owner how to register the CRS.
(3) Manufacturers must provide statements informing the purchaser
that the registration card is pre-addressed and that postage has been
paid.
(4) Manufacturers may provide instructions to register the child

[[Page 84601]]

restraint system electronically. If an electronic registration form is
used or referenced, it must meet the requirements of S5.8.2 of this
section.
(5) Manufacturers may optionally provide statements to the owner
explaining that the registration card is not a warranty card, and that
the information collected from the owner will not be used for marketing
purposes.
S5.8.2 Electronic registration form. (a) Each electronic
registration form must meet the requirements of this S5.8.2. Each form
shall:
(1) Contain statements at the top of the form:
(i) Informing the owner of the importance of registering the CRS;
and,
(ii) Instructing the owner how to register the CRS.
(2) Provide as required registration fields, space for the
purchaser to record the model name or number and date of manufacture
(month, year) of the child restraint system, and space for the
purchaser to record his or her name and mailing address. At the
manufacturer's option, a space is provided for the purchaser to
optionally record his or her email address. At the manufacturer's
option, a space is provided for the purchaser to optionally record his
or her telephone number.
(b) No advertising or other information shall appear on the
electronic registration form. However, manufacturers may optionally
provide statements to the owner explaining that the registration is not
for a warranty, and that the information collected from the owner will
not be used for marketing purposes.
(c) The electronic registration form may provide information
identifying the manufacturer or a link to the manufacturer's home page,
a field to confirm submission, and a prompt to indicate any incomplete
or invalid fields prior to submission.
(d) If a manufacturer printed the electronic address (in form of a
website (printed URL)) on the attached registration form provided
pursuant to S5.8.1, the electronic registration form shall be accessed
directly by the electronic address. Accessing the electronic address
(in form of a website (printed URL)) that contains the electronic
registration form shall not cause additional screens or electronic
banners to appear. In addition to the electronic address in the form of
a website, manufacturers may include a code (such as QR code or
similar) to access the electronic address.
S5.9 Attachment to child restraint anchorage system. (a) Each add-
on child restraint system other than a car bed, harness and belt-
positioning seat, shall have components permanently attached to the
system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system specified in
Standard No. 225 (Sec. 571.225) and depicted in NHTSA Standard Seat
Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, (March 2023) (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The components must be attached by use
of a tool, such as a screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing child
restraint systems with detachable bases, only the base is required to
have the components.
(b) In the case of each child restraint system that has components
for attaching the system to a tether anchorage, those components shall
include a tether hook that conforms to the configuration and geometry
specified in Figure 11 of this standard.
(c) In the case of each child restraint system that has components,
including belt webbing, for attaching the system to a tether anchorage
or to a child restraint anchorage system, the belt webbing shall be
adjustable so that the child restraint system can be tightly attached
to the vehicle.
(d) Each child restraint system with components that enable the
restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child
restraint anchorage system, other than a system with hooks for
attaching to the lower anchorages, shall provide either an indication
when each attachment to the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or
attached, or a visual indication that all attachments to the lower
anchorages are fully latched or attached. Visual indications shall be
detectable under normal daylight lighting conditions.
S6 Test conditions and procedures.
S6.1 Dynamic systems test for child restraint systems.
The test conditions described in S6.1.1 apply to the dynamic
systems test. The test procedure for the dynamic systems test is
specified in S6.1.2. The test dummy specified in S7 is placed in the
test specimen (child restraint system), clothed as described in S9 and
positioned according to S10.
S6.1.1 Test conditions--(a) Test devices. (1) Add-on child
restraint systems. The test device for add-on child restraint systems
is a standard seat assembly consisting of a simulated vehicle rear seat
which is depicted in NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No.
NHTSA-213-2021 (March 2023) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
571.5). The assembly is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the
center SORL of the seat is parallel to the direction of the test
platform travel and so that movement between the base of the assembly
and the platform is prevented. As illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B of
this standard, attached to the seat belt anchorage points provided on
the standard seat assembly is a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly.
The seat belt assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 209
(Sec. 571.209) and has webbing with a width of not more than 2 inches,
and are attached to the anchorage points without the use of retractors
or reels of any kind. As illustrated in Figures 1A' and 1B' of this
standard, attached to the standard seat assembly is a child restraint
anchorage system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225
(Sec. 571.225). The indentation force deflection (IFD) characteristics
of the seat pan cushion and seat back cushion are described in drawing
numbers 3021-233 and 3021-248 in the NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly;
FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, (March 2023) (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 571.5); the IFD is measured on the full size
cushion samples using the test methodology and apparatus described in
ASTM Standard D3574-11 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5) at
50% indentation.
(2) The test device for built-in child restraint systems is either
the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle.
(i) Specific vehicle shell. (A) The specific vehicle shell, if
selected for testing, is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the
longitudinal center line of the shell is parallel to the direction of
the test platform travel and so that movement between the base of the
shell and the platform is prevented. Adjustable seats are in the
adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost
positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at
the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway
between the forwardmost and rearmost position, the closest adjustment
position to the rear of the midpoint is used. Adjustable seat backs are
in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. If such a
position is not specified, the seat back is positioned so that the
longitudinal center line of the child test dummy's neck is vertical,
and if an instrumented test dummy is used, the accelerometer surfaces
in the dummy's head and thorax, as positioned in the vehicle, are
horizontal. If the vehicle seat is equipped with adjustable head
restraints, each is adjusted to its highest adjustment position.
(B) The platform is instrumented with an accelerometer and data
processing system having a frequency response of 60 Hz channel
frequency class as

[[Page 84602]]

specified in SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 571.5). The accelerometer sensitive axis is
parallel to the direction of test platform travel.
(ii) Specific vehicle. For built-in child restraint systems, an
alternate test device is the specific vehicle into which the built-in
system is fabricated. The following test conditions apply to this
alternate test device.
(A) The vehicle is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight plus its
rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage area,
plus the appropriate child test dummy and, at the vehicle
manufacturer's option, an anthropomorphic test dummy which conforms to
the requirements of subpart B or subpart E of part 572 of this title
for a 50th percentile adult male dummy placed in the front outboard
seating position. If the built-in child restraint system is installed
at one of the seating positions otherwise requiring the placement of a
part 572 test dummy, then in the frontal barrier crash specified in
paragraph (c) of this section, the appropriate child test dummy shall
be substituted for the part 572 adult dummy, but only at that seating
position. The fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of
capacity.
(B) Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between
the forward-most and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable
in a vehicle direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment
position does not exist midway between the forward-most and rearmost
positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint
is used.
(C) Adjustable seat backs are in the manufacturer's nominal design
riding position. If a nominal position is not specified, the seat back
is positioned so that the longitudinal center line of the child test
dummy's neck is vertical, and if an anthropomorphic test dummy is used,
the accelerometer surfaces in the test dummy's head and thorax, as
positioned in the vehicle, are horizontal. If the vehicle is equipped
with adjustable head restraints, each is adjusted to its highest
adjustment position.
(D) Movable vehicle windows and vents are, at the manufacturer's
option, placed in the fully closed position.
(E) Convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if any,
in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration.
(F) Doors are fully closed and latched but not locked.
(G) All instrumentation and data reduction are in conformance with
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
571.5).
(b) The tests are frontal barrier impact simulations of the test
platform or frontal barrier crashes of the specific vehicles as
specified in S5.1 of Sec. 571.208 and for:
(1) Test Configuration I, are at a velocity change of 48 km/h with
the acceleration of the test platform entirely within the curve shown
in Figure 2, or for the specific vehicle test with the deceleration
produced in a 48 km/h frontal barrier crash.
(2) Test Configuration II, are set at a velocity change of 32 km/h
with the acceleration of the test platform entirely within the curve
shown in Figure 3, or for the specific vehicle test, with the
deceleration produced in a 32 km/h frontal barrier crash.
(c) As illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B of this standard, attached
to the seat belt anchorage points provided on the standard seat
assembly are Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies. These seat belt
assemblies meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (Sec. 571.209)
and have webbing with a width of not more than 2 inches, and are
attached to the anchorage points without the use of retractors or reels
of any kind. As illustrated in Figures 1A' and 1B' of this standard,
attached to the standard seat assembly is a child restraint anchorage
system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225 (Sec.
571.225).
(d)(1) When using the test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572,
subparts I and K, performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any
ambient temperature from 19 [deg]C to 26 [deg]C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
(2) When using the test dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572,
subpart N, P, R or T, performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any
ambient temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
(e) In the case of add-on child restraint systems, the restraint
shall meet the requirements of S5 at each of its seat back angle
adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the
restraint is oriented in the direction recommended by the manufacturer
(e.g., forward, rearward or laterally) pursuant to S5.6, and tested
with the test dummy specified in S7.
S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure. (a) Activate the built-in child
restraint system or attach the add-on child restraint system to the
seat assembly in any of the following manners, at the agency's option.
(1) Test configuration I. (i) Child restraint systems other than
booster seats. At the agency's option, attach the child restraint in
any of the following manners specified in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) through
(D), unless otherwise specified in this standard. The child restraint
system must meet the requirements of the standard when attached in any
of these manners, subject to S6.1.2.
(A) Install the child restraint system on the standard seat
assembly, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided
with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that, at the agency's
option, the standard lap belt is used or the lap and shoulder belt is
used. If provided, a tether strap may be used, but only if the
manufacturer's instructions instruct consumers to use it. Attach the
school bus child restraint system in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, e.g., the
seat back mount or seat back and seat pan mount are used.
(B) Except for a child harness, a school bus child restraint
system, and a restraint designed for use by children with physical
disabilities, install the child restraint system on the standard seat
assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), except that no tether strap (or any
other supplemental device) is used.
(C) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system on the standard seat assembly in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to
S5.6.1. The tether strap, if one is provided, is attached to the tether
anchorage.
(D) Install the child restraint system using only the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system as in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device)
is used.
(ii) Booster seats. A booster seat is placed on the standard seat
assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided
with the system pursuant to S5.6.1. The booster seat is dynamically
tested using only the standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt and no
tether (or any other supplemental device). At NHTSA's option, the ATD
Head Protection Device depicted in NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS
No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, (March 2023), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 571.5) can be used when testing backless child restraint
systems. Place the booster seat on the standard seat assembly such that
the center plane of the booster seat is parallel and aligned to the
center plane of the standard seat assembly and the base of the booster
seat is flat on the standard seat assembly cushion. Move the booster
seat rearward on the standard seat assembly until some part

[[Page 84603]]

of the booster seat touches the standard seat assembly back. Keep the
booster seat and the seating position center plane aligned as much as
possible. Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the front of the booster
seat rearward into the standard seat assembly and release.
(iii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system, activate
the restraint in the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle, in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided in accordance
with S5.6.2.
(2) Test configuration II. (i) In the case of each add-on child
restraint system which is equipped with a fixed or movable surface
described in S5.2.2.2, install the add-on child restraint system onto
the standard seat assembly using only the standard seat lap belt or the
lap and shoulder belt to secure the system to the standard seat, or at
NHTSA's option, only the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system. Do not attach the top tether.
(ii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system which is
equipped with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 that has
belts that are not an integral part of that fixed or movable surface,
activate the system in the specific vehicle shell or the specific
vehicle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided in
accordance with S5.6.2.
(b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing systems for use by
children of any height or any weight for which the system is
recommended in accordance with S5.5. The dummy is assembled, clothed
and prepared as specified in S7 and S9 and part 572 of this chapter, as
appropriate.
(c) Place the dummy in the child restraint system. Position it, and
attach the child restraint system belts, if appropriate, as specified
in S10.
(d)(1) The belts of add-on systems other than belt-positioning
seats are adjusted as follows.
(i) Shoulder and pelvic belts that directly restrain the dummy are
adjusted as follows: Tighten the belt system used to restrain the child
within the child restraint system to any tension of not less than 9
Newtons and not more than 18 Newtons on the webbing at the top of each
dummy shoulder and the pelvic region.
(ii) All Type 1 or Type 2 belt systems used to attach an add-on
child restraint system to the standard seat assembly are tightened to
any tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N. Tighten any
provided additional anchorage belt (top tether) to any tension of not
less than 45 Newtons and not more than 53.5 Newtons. All belt systems
used to attach a school bus child restraint system are also tightened
to any tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N.
(iii) When using the child restraint anchorage system to attach the
child restraint system to the standard seat assembly, tighten the belt
systems of the lower anchorage attachments used to attach the restraint
to the standard seat assembly to any tension of not less than 53.5
Newtons and not more than 67 Newtons and tighten the belt of the top
tether attachment used to attach the restraint to the standard seat
assembly to any tension of not less than 45 Newtons and not more than
53.5 Newtons.
(2) The belts of add-on belt-positioning seats are adjusted as
follows.
(i) The lap portion of Type 2 belt systems used to restrain the
dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more than
18 N.
(ii) The shoulder portion of Type 2 belt systems used to restrain
the dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more
than 18 N.
(3) The belts of built-in child restraint systems are adjusted as
follows.
(i) The lap portion of Type 2 belt systems used to restrain the
dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more than
18 N.
(ii) The shoulder portion of Type 2 belt systems used to restrain
the dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more
than 18 N.
(iii) For built-in child restraint systems, if provided, shoulder
and pelvic belts that directly restrain the dummy are adjusted as
follows. Tighten the belt system used to restrain the child within the
child restraint system to any tension of not less than 9 Newtons and
not more than 18 Newtons on the webbing at the top of each dummy
shoulder and the pelvic region.
(e) Accelerate the test platform to simulate frontal impact in
accordance with Test Configuration I or II, as appropriate.
(f) Determine conformance with the requirements in S5.1.
S6.2 Buckle release test procedure. The belt assembly buckles used
in any child restraint system shall be tested in accordance with S6.2.1
through S6.2.4 inclusive.
S6.2.1 Before conducting the testing specified in S6.1, place the
loaded buckle on a hard, flat, horizontal surface. Each belt end of the
buckle shall be pre-loaded in the following manner. The anchor end of
the buckle shall be loaded with a 9 N force in the direction away from
the buckle. In the case of buckles designed to secure a single latch
plate, the belt latch plate end of the buckle shall be pre-loaded with
a 9 N force in the direction away from the buckle. In the case of
buckles designed to secure two or more latch plates, the belt latch
plate ends of the buckle shall be loaded equally so that the total load
is 9 N, in the direction away from the buckle. For pushbutton-release
buckles, the release force shall be applied by a conical surface (cone
angle not exceeding 90 degrees). For pushbutton-release mechanisms with
a fixed edge (referred to in Figure 7 as ``hinged button''), the
release force shall be applied at the centerline of the button, 3 mm
away from the movable edge directly opposite the fixed edge, and in the
direction that produces maximum releasing effect. For pushbutton-
release mechanisms with no fixed edge (referred to in Figure 7 as
``floating button''), the release force shall be applied at the center
of the release mechanism in the direction that produces the maximum
releasing effect. For all other buckle release mechanisms, the force
shall be applied on the centerline of the buckle lever or finger tab in
the direction that produces the maximum releasing effect. Measure the
force required to release the buckle. Figure 7 illustrates the loading
for the different buckles and the point where the release force should
be applied, and Figure 8 illustrates the conical surface used to apply
the release force to pushbutton-release buckles.
S6.2.2 After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and before
the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each wrist and
ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure 4, without
disturbing the belted dummy and the child restraint system.
S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the dummy restrained in the child
restraint system and apply the following force: 50 N for a system
tested with a newborn dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart K); 90 N for a
system tested with a 12-month-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart R);
200 N for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572,
subpart P); 270 N for a system tested with a 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR
part 572, subpart N or I); 350 N for a system tested with a weighted 6-
year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S); or 437 N for a system
tested with a 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T). The force
is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows:
(a) Add-on child restraint systems. For an add-on child restraint
system other than a car bed, apply the specified force by pulling the
sling horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the standard seat
assembly. For a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling
vertically.

[[Page 84604]]

(b) Built-in child restraint systems. For a built-in child
restraint systems other than a car bed, apply the force by pulling the
sling parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the specific vehicle
shell or the specific vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply the
force by pulling the sling vertically.
S6.2.4 While applying the force specified in S6.2.3, and using the
device shown in Figure 8 for pushbutton-release buckles, apply the
release force in the manner and location specified in S6.2.1, for that
type of buckle. Measure the force required to release the buckle.
S6.3 [Reserved]
S7 Test dummies. (Subparts referenced in this section are of part
572 of this chapter.)
S7.1 Dummy selection. Select any dummy specified in S7.1.1, S7.1.2
or S7.1.3, as appropriate, for testing systems for use by children of
the height (regardless of weight) or weight (regardless of height) for
which the system is recommended in accordance with S5.5. A child
restraint system that meets the criteria in two or more of the
following paragraphs in S7 may be tested with any of the test dummies
specified in those paragraphs.
S7.1.1 [Reserved]
S7.1.2 Child restraints systems are subject to the following
provisions and S7.1.3.
(a) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight of
not greater than 5 kg (11 lb) regardless of height, or by children in a
specified height range that includes any children whose height is not
greater than 650 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572 subpart K dummy (newborn infant dummy).
(b) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 10 kg (22 lb) regardless
of height, or by children in a specified height range that includes any
children whose height is greater than 650 mm but not greater than 750
mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part 572 subpart K
dummy (newborn infant dummy), and a part 572 subpart R dummy (CRABI 12-
month-old test dummy).
(c) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 10 kg (22 lb) but not greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that
includes any children whose height is greater than 750 mm but not
greater than 870 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a part 572
subpart R dummy (CRABI 12-month-old test dummy), provided, however,
that the CRABI 12-month-old dummy is not used to test a forward-facing
child restraint system.
(d) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb) but not greater than 18.2 kg (40 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that
includes any children whose height is greater than 870 mm but not
greater than 1100 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572, subpart P dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy).
(e) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 18.2 kg (40 lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that
includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm but not
greater than 1250 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy).
(f) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not greater than 30 kg (65 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that
includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm but not
greater than 1250 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy) and with a part 572,
subpart S dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy).
(g) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 30 kg (65 lb) regardless of height, or by children in a
specified height range that includes any children whose height is
greater than 1250 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572, subpart T dummy (Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy).
S8 Requirements, test conditions, and procedures for child
restraint systems manufactured for use in aircraft. Each child
restraint system manufactured for use in both motor vehicles and
aircraft must comply with all of the applicable requirements specified
in Section S5 and with the additional requirements specified in S8.1
and S8.2.
S8.1 Installation instructions. Each child restraint system
manufactured for use in aircraft shall be accompanied by printed
instructions in English that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for installing the system in aircraft passenger
seats, securing a child in the system when it is installed in aircraft,
and adjusting the system to fit the child.
S8.2 Inversion test. When tested in accordance with S8.2.1 through
S8.2.5, each child restraint system manufactured for use in aircraft
shall meet the requirements of S8.2.1 through S8.2.6. The manufacturer
may, at its option, use any seat which is a representative aircraft
passenger seat within the meaning of S4. Each system shall meet the
requirements at each of the restraint's seat back angle adjustment
positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the restraint is
oriented in the direction recommended by the manufacturer (e.g., facing
forward, rearward or laterally) pursuant to S8.1, and tested with the
test dummy specified in S7. If the manufacturer recommendations do not
include instructions for orienting the restraint in aircraft when the
restraint seat back angle is adjusted to any position, position the
restraint on the aircraft seat by following the instructions (provided
in accordance with S5.6) for orienting the restraint in motor vehicles.
S8.2.1 A standard seat assembly consisting of a representative
aircraft passenger seat shall be positioned and adjusted so that its
horizontal and vertical orientation and its seat back angle are the
same as shown in Figure 6.
S8.2.2 The child restraint system shall be attached to the
representative aircraft passenger seat using, at the manufacturer's
option, any Federal Aviation Administration approved aircraft safety
belt, according to the restraint manufacturer's instructions for
attaching the restraint to an aircraft seat. No supplementary anchorage
belts or tether straps may be attached; however, Federal Aviation
Administration approved safety belt extensions may be used.
S8.2.3 In accordance with S10, place in the child restraint system
any dummy specified in S7 for testing systems for use by children of
the heights and weights for which the system is

[[Page 84605]]

recommended in accordance with S5.5 and S8.1.
S8.2.4 If provided, shoulder and pelvic belts that directly
restrain the dummy shall be adjusted in accordance with S6.1.2.
S8.2.5 The combination of representative aircraft passenger seat,
child restraint system, and test dummy shall be rotated forward around
a horizontal axis which is contained in the median transverse vertical
plane of the seating surface portion of the aircraft seat and is
located 25 mm below the bottom of the seat frame, at a speed of 35 to
45 degrees per second, to an angle of 180 degrees. The rotation shall
be stopped when it reaches that angle and the seat shall be held in
this position for three seconds. The child restraint system shall not
fall out of the aircraft safety belt nor shall the test dummy fall out
of the child restraint system at any time during the rotation or the
three second period. The specified rate of rotation shall be attained
in not less than one half second and not more than one second, and the
rotating combination shall be brought to a stop in not less than one
half second and not more than one second.
S8.2.6 Repeat the procedures set forth in S8.2.1 through S8.2.4.
The combination of the representative aircraft passenger seat, child
restraint system, and test dummy shall be rotated sideways around a
horizontal axis which is contained in the median longitudinal vertical
plane of the seating surface portion of the aircraft seat and is
located 25 mm below the bottom of the seat frame, at a speed of 35 to
45 degrees per second, to an angle of 180 degrees. The rotation shall
be stopped when it reaches that angle and the seat shall be held in
this position for three seconds. The child restraint system shall not
fall out of the aircraft safety belt nor shall the test dummy fall out
of the child restraint system at any time during the rotation or the
three second period. The specified rate of rotation shall be attained
in not less than one half second and not more than one second, and the
rotating combination shall be brought to a stop in not less than one
half second and not more than one second.
S9 Dummy clothing and preparation.
S9.1 Type of clothing.
(a) Newborn dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart K). When used in
testing under this standard, the dummy is unclothed.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) 12-month-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart R). When used in
testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572,
subpart R, is clothed in a cotton-polyester based tight fitting
sweatshirt with long sleeves and ankle long pants whose combined weight
is not more than 0.25 kg.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart P). When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part
572, subpart P, is clothed as specified in that subpart, except that
the shoes are children's size 8 canvas oxford style sneakers weighing
not more than 0.26 kg each.
(f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N) and
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S), and
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T). When used in
testing under this standard, the dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572,
subparts N and S, are clothed as specified in subpart N and with child
or youth size 13 M sneakers weighing not more than 0.45 kg each. When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part
572, subpart T, is clothed as specified in subpart T and with youth
size 3 sneakers weighing not more than 0.6 kg each.
S9.2 Preparing clothing. Clothing other than the shoes is machined-
washed in 71 [deg]C to 82 [deg]C and machine-dried at 49 [deg]C to 60
[deg]C for 30 minutes.
S9.3 Preparing dummies. (Subparts referenced in this section are of
part 572 of this chapter.)
S9.3.1 When using the test dummy conforming to subpart K, prepare
the dummy as specified in this paragraph. Before being used in testing
under this standard, the dummy must be conditioned at any ambient
temperature from 19 [deg]C to 25.5 [deg]C and at any relative humidity
from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours.
S9.3.2 When using the test dummies conforming to subparts N, P, R,
S or T, prepare the dummies as specified in this paragraph. Before
being used in testing under this standard, dummies must be conditioned
at any ambient temperature from 20.6[deg] to 22.2 [deg]C and at any
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours.
S10 Positioning the dummy and attaching the system belts.
S10.1 Car beds. Place the test dummy in the car bed in the supine
position with its midsagittal plane perpendicular to the center SORL of
the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-on car bed, or
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the specific vehicle shell or
the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in car bed. Position the
dummy within the car bed in accordance with the instructions for child
positioning that the bed manufacturer provided with the bed in
accordance with S5.6.
S10.2 Restraints other than car beds.
S10.2.1 Newborn dummy and 12-month-old dummy. Position the test
dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the
manufacturer provided with the system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while
conforming to the following:
(a) [Reserved]
(b) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the
newborn, or 12-month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that
the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the
system. For a child restraint system which is equipped with a fixed or
movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 which is being tested under the
conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child
restraint system belts unless they are an integral part of the fixed or
movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for a child
restraint system with a fixed or movable surface which is being tested
under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all appropriate
child restraint system belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in
S6.1.2. Position each movable surface in accordance with the
instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. If
the dummy's head does not remain in the proper position, tape it
against the front of the seat back surface of the system by means of a
single thickness of 6 mm-wide paper masking tape placed across the
center of the dummy's face.
(c) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, extend the
dummy's arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm downward
toward the dummy's lower body until the arm contacts a surface of the
child restraint system or the standard seat assembly in the case of an
add-on child restraint system, or the specific vehicle shell or the
specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in child restraint system.
Ensure that no arm is restrained from movement in other than the
downward direction, by any part of the system or the belts used to
anchor the system to the standard seat assembly, the specific shell, or
the specific vehicle.
S10.2.2 Other dummies generally. When using: (1) the Hybrid III 3-
year-old (part 572, subpart P), and Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old
(part 572, subpart S) in child restraint systems including belt-
positioning seats; (2) the Hybrid III 6-year-old (part 572, subpart N)
and the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 572, subpart

[[Page 84606]]

T) in child restraint systems other than belt-positioning seats,
position the dummy in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while
conforming to the following:
(a) Holding the test dummy torso upright until it contacts the
system's design seating surface, place the test dummy in the seated
position within the system with the midsagittal plane of the test dummy
head--
(1) Coincident with the center SORL of the standard seating
assembly, in the case of the add-on child restraint system, or
(2) Vertical and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the
specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in child restraint system.
(b) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the
upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
(c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square
millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to:
(1) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, in the
case of an add-on system, or
(2) The back of the vehicle seat in the specific vehicle shell or
the specific vehicle, in the case of a built-in system, first against
the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane
of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable
surface described in S5.2.2.2, which is being tested under the
conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child
restraint system belts unless they are an integral part of the fixed or
movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for a child
restraint system with a fixed or movable surface which is being tested
under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all appropriate
child restraint system belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in
S6.1.2. Position each movable surface in accordance with the
instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.
(d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's
midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the limbs, if
necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head
movement in tests conducted under S6.
(e) Additional provisions when using the Hybrid III 3-year-old
(part 572, subpart P) dummy in a rear-facing child restraint system.
(1) When using the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy in a rear-facing
child restraint system with an internal harness or other components to
restrain the child, remove the knee stop screw (as shown in drawing
210-6516 of Drawing No. 210-5000-1 (L),-2(R), Leg Assembly in subpart P
of part 572 of this chapter (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
571.5) from the right and left knee so as to let the knees hyperextend.
(2) Place the subpart P dummy in the child restraint system being
tested so that the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support
surface of the system. For a child restraint system equipped with a
fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 that is being tested
under the conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the
child restraint system belts unless they are an integral part of the
fixed or movable surface. For all other child restraint systems and for
a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface that is being
tested under the conditions of test configuration I, attach all
appropriate child restraint system belts and tighten them as specified
in S6.1.2. Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2. Position each movable surface in accordance with
the instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.
S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old in belt-positioning seats, Hybrid III
weighted 6-year-old in belt-positioning seats, and Hybrid III 10-year-
old in belt-positioning seats. When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old
(part 572, subpart N), the Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old (part 572,
subpart S), or the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 572, subpart T) in
belt-positioning seats, position the dummy in accordance with S5.6.1 or
S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:
(a) Prepare the dummy. (1) When using the Hybrid III 10-year-old
dummy, prepare the dummy according to the following:
(i) Set the dummy's neck angle at the SP-16 setting (``SP'' means
standard procedure), see Figure 14a.
(ii) Set the dummy's lumbar angle at the SP-12 setting, see Figure
14b. This is done by aligning the notch on the lumbar adjustment
bracket with the SP-12 notch on the lumbar attachment.
(iii) Adjust the limb joints to 1-2 g while the torso is in the
seated position.
(iv) Apply double-sided tape to the surface of a lap shield, which
is a piece of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm 0.5 mm thick
(50A durometer) cut to the dimensions specified in Figure 13 in this
section. Place the lap shield on the pelvis of the dummy. Align the top
of the lap shield with the superior anterior edge of the pelvis skin.
Attach the lap shield to the dummy.
(v) Apply double-sided tape to one side of a pelvis positioning
pad, which is a 125 x 95 x 20 mm (2 mm tolerance in each of
the three dimensions) piece of closed cell (Type 2 according to ASTM
D1056-07) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5) foam or rubber
cut from material having the following specifications: compression
resistance between 9 to 17 psi in a compression-deflection test
specified in ASTM D1056-07 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
571.5), and a density of 7 to 12.5 lb/ft\3\. Center the long axis of
the pad on the posterior of the pelvis with the top edge of the foam
aligned with the superior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach the pelvis
positioning pad to the dummy.
(vi) Dress and prepare the dummy according to S9.
(2) When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and the Hybrid III
weighted 6-year-old dummy, prepare the dummy according to the
following:
(i) If necessary, adjust the limb joints to 1-2 g while the torso
is in the seated position.
(ii) Apply double-sided tape to the surface of a lap shield, which
is a piece of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm thick 0.5 mm
thick (50A durometer) cut to the dimensions specified in Figure 13.
Place the lap shield on the pelvis of the dummy. Align the top of the
lap shield with the superior anterior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach
the lap shield to the dummy.
(iii) Dress and prepare the dummy according to S9.
(b) Position the belt-positioning seat. Position the belt-
positioning seat according to S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii).
(c) Position the dummy. Position the dummy in the belt-positioning
seat.
(1) Place the dummy on the seat cushion of the belt-positioning
seat such that the plane of the posterior pelvis is parallel to the
plane of the seat back of the belt-positioning seat, standard seat
assembly or vehicle seat back, but not touching. Pick up and move the
dummy rearward, maintaining the parallel planes, until the pelvis
positioning pad, if used, or the pelvis or back of the dummy and the
back of the belt-positioning seat or the back of the standard seat
assembly, are in minimal contact.
(2) Straighten and align the arm segments horizontally, then rotate
the

[[Page 84607]]

arms upward at the shoulder as far as possible without contacting the
belt-positioning seat. Straighten and align the legs horizontally and
extend the lower legs as far as possible in the forward horizontal
direction, with the feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower
legs.
(3) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square
millimeters, apply a force of 178 N (40 lb) first against the dummy
crotch and then against the dummy thorax on the midsagittal plane of
the dummy, perpendicular to:
(i) The plane of the back of the belt-positioning seat, in the case
of a belt-positioning seat with a back, or,
(ii) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly or vehicle
seat, in the case of a backless belt-positioning seat or built-in
booster.
(4) Rotate the arms of the dummy down so that they are
perpendicular to the torso.
(5) Bend the knees until the back of the lower legs are in minimal
contact with the belt-positioning seat, standard seat assembly or
vehicle seat. Position the legs such that the outer edges of the knees
are 180 10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and
220 10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy.
Position the feet such that the soles are perpendicular to the
centerline of the lower legs. In the case of a belt-positioning seat
with a back, adjust the dummy so that the shoulders are parallel to a
line connecting the shoulder belt guides. This can be accomplished by
leaning the torso such that the dummy's head and neck are centered on
the backrest components of the belt-positioning seat. In case of a
backless child restraint system, adjust the dummy's torso so that the
head is as close to laterally level as possible.
(d) Apply the belt. Attach the vehicle belts and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2.
(e) Dummy final positioning. (1) Check the leg, feet, thorax and
head positions and make any necessary adjustments to achieve the
positions described in S10.2.3(c)(5). Position the legs, if necessary,
so that the leg placement does not inhibit thorax movement in tests
conducted under S6.
(2) Rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a surface of the child
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the arms, if
necessary, so that the arm placement does not inhibit torso or head
movement in tests conducted under S6.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Figure 1A-1 to Sec. 571.213b--Seat Orientation Reference Line and Seat
Belt Anchorage Point Locations on the Standard Seat Assembly
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.008

[[Page 84608]]

Figure 1A-2 to Sec. 571.213b--Seat Orientation Reference Line and
Location of the Lower Anchorages of the Child Restraint Anchorate
System on the Standard Seat Assembly
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.009

[[Page 84609]]

Figure 1B-1 to Sec. 571.213b--Location of Shoulder Belt Upper and
Lower Guide Loops and Forward Excursion Limits on the Standard Seat
Assembly
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.010

[[Page 84610]]

Figure 1B-2 to Sec. 571.213b--Location of the Child Restraint
Anchorages and Forward Excursion Limits on the Standard Seat Assembly
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.011

[[Page 84611]]

Figure 1C to Sec. 571.213b--Rear-Facing Child Restraint Forward and
Upper Head Excursion Limits
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.012

[[Page 84612]]

Figure 2 to Sec. 571.213b
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.013

[[Page 84613]]

Figure 3 to Sec. 571.213b
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.014

[[Page 84614]]

Figure 4 to Sec. 571.213b--Buckle Release Test
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.015

[[Page 84615]]

Figure 5[Reserved]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.016

[[Page 84616]]

Figure 7 to Sec. 571.213b--Pre-Impact Buckle Release Force Test Set-up
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.017

[[Page 84617]]

Figure 8 to Sec. 571.213b--Release Force Application Device-Push
Button Release Buckles
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.018

[[Page 84618]]

Figure 9a to Sec. 571.213b--Registration Form for Child Restraint
Systems--Product Identification Number and Purchaser Information Side
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.019

Figure 9b to Sec. 571.213b--Registration Form for Child Restraint
Systems--Address Side
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.020

[[Page 84619]]

Figure 10 to Sec. 571.213b--Label on Child Seat Where Child's Head
Rests
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.021

[[Page 84620]]

Figure 11 to Sec. 571.213b--Interface Profile of Tether Hook
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.022

[[Page 84621]]

Figure 12 to Sec. 571.213b--Label on Harness Component That Attaches
to School Bus Seat Back
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.023

[[Page 84622]]

Figure 13 to Sec. 571.213b--Lap Shield
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.024

Figure 14a to Sec. 571.213b--HIII-10C Dummy Neck Angle Setting is SP-
16 Degrees
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.025

[[Page 84623]]

Figure 14b to Sec. 571.213b--HIII-10C Dummy Lumbar Angle Setting is
SP-12 Degrees
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE23.026

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Ann E. Carlson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-26082 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C