Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-26082

Rule2023-26082

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Child Restraint Systems

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 5, 2023

Effective

February 5, 2024

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
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 <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices">https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices</a>.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, 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. <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec">https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Making conforming changes and corrections to the drawing
package for the updated standard seat assembly;
<bullet> 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]]

<bullet> Retaining a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that child
harnesses will be tested with a Type 1 seat belt installation; and,
<bullet> 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: <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\ <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec">https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (<a href="http://dot.gov">dot.gov</a>); 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 (<a href="http://dot.gov">dot.gov</a>); 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 (<a href="http://dot.gov">dot.gov</a>); 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 (<a href="http://dot.gov">dot.gov</a>);
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 (<a href="http://dot.gov">dot.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
<bullet> Increase of CRSs used rear-facing from 83% to 91.7%
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Increase of CRSs used rear-facing from 7% to 17.4%
<bullet> 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)
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Increase of forward-facing CRS use from 18% to 32.5%
<bullet> 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)
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Increase of CRS used rear-facing from 89% to 92.4%
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Increase of CRSs used rear-facing from 7% to 15.2%
<bullet> Decrease of forward-facing CRS use from 61% to 58%
(decrease mostly because more children of this weight group are
remaining rear facing longer)
<bullet> 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)
<bullet> Decrease of seat belt only use from 6% to 5%
Children 41-60 lb
<bullet> Increase of forward-facing with internal harness CRS use
from 11% to 23.5%
<bullet> 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)
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://portalskcms.cyzap.net/dzapps/dbzap.bin/apps/assess/webmembers/secure/manage?webid=SKCMS&pToolCode=CERT-SEARCH&pAdd=Yes">https://portalskcms.cyzap.net/dzapps/dbzap.bin/apps/assess/webmembers/secure/manage?webid=SKCMS&pToolCode=CERT-SEARCH&pAdd=Yes</a> (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).
<a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812491">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812491</a>. 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0093-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0093-0005</a>.
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.<SUP>62 63</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ The Woodbridge Group is a supplier of automotive seat foam,
<a href="http://www.woodbridgegroup.com">http://www.woodbridgegroup.com</a>.
\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 <a href="https://regulations.gov/">https://regulations.gov/</a>.
\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, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2013-0055-0013">https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2013-0055-0013</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://regulations.gov/">https://regulations.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <plus-minus>12.7 mm (<plus-
minus>0.50 inches); and the seat back cushion is nominally 51 mm (2.00
inches) thick with a tolerance of <plus-minus>6.4 mm (<plus-minus>0.25
inches). Graco argued that the current foam pieces have a tolerance on
their thicknesses of <plus-minus>1/8 inches (<plus-minus>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
<plus-minus> 0.5 inches to 4 <plus-minus> 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: <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/test-procedures">https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-manufacturers/test-procedures</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="https://www.pfa.org/foam-performance/">https://www.pfa.org/foam-performance/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://regulations.gov/">https://regulations.gov/</a>.
\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 <a href="https://regulations.gov/">https://regulations.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. <a href="https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/19/05-0284-W.pdf">https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/19/05-0284-W.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RCLRPT-21C003-8612.PDF">https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RCLRPT-21C003-8612.PDF</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

<bullet> 953 <plus-minus>3 mm (3021-010, Sheet 1), using part 3021-209
as the reference plane
<bullet> 953 <plus-minus>3 mm (3021-015, Sheet 1), using part 3021-209
as the reference plane
<bullet> 941 <plus-minus>3 mm (3021-015, Sheet 2), using part 3021-200-
9 as the reference plane
<bullet> 877 <plus-minus>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:

<bullet> 3021-255, Sheet 1: Seat Frame Gusset Plate
<bullet> 3021-326, Sheet 1: D-Ring Anchor
<bullet> 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>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

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 5, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.