[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51720-51732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17218]



[[Page 51720]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21245]
RIN 2127-AJ44


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to Section 4(b) and Section 3(b)(2) of 
Anton's Law, which directed NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on child 
restraint system safety, with a specific focus on booster seats and 
restraints for children who weigh more than 50 pounds (lb). After the 
enactment of Anton's Law, this agency increased the applicability of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint 
systems, from restraints recommended for children up to 50 lb to 
restraints recommended for children up to 65 lb. Today's document 
proposes a further expansion, to restraints recommended for children up 
to 80 lb. It also proposes to require booster seats and other 
restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with a crash test 
dummy representative of a 10-year-old child. Section 4(a) and all other 
provisions of Section 3 were addressed in rulemaking documents issued 
previously by NHTSA.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than October 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS number in the 
heading of this document] by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comments 
heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. 
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see 
the information regarding the Privacy Act under the Submission Comments 
heading.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    For non-legal issues: Mr. George Mouchahoir of the NHTSA Office of 
Rulemaking at (202) 366-4919.
    For legal issues: Mr. Christopher Calamita of the NHTSA Office of 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992 and at (202) 366-3820 by facsimile.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Anton's Law
II. Overview of NHTSA's Responses to Sections 3 and 4 of Anton's Law
    a. Sections Already Addressed
    b. Sections Not Previously Addressed in Rulemaking
    c. Summary of Responses to Public Law 107-318
III. Expanded Coverage and Improved Evaluation of Booster Seats
    a. Introduction
    b. Proposed Amendments to FMVSS No. 213
    1. Hybrid III-10C Test Dummy
    2. Extending the Applicability of the Standard
    3. Injury Criteria for the Hybrid III-10C Test Dummy
    a. Proposed Criteria
    b. Criteria under Development
    c. Chest Deflection and Mass Limit for Boosters
IV. Performance Criteria for Belt Fit
    a. IIHS Study
    b. NHTSA Studies
V. Benefits and Costs
VI. Submission of Comments
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A

I. Anton's Law

    On December 4, 2002, President Bush signed Public Law 107-318, 116 
Stat. 2772, (``Anton's Law \1\''), which provides for the improvement 
of the safety of child restraints in passenger motor vehicles. Section 
3 of Anton's Law directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for the 
purpose of improving the safety of child restraints, and to complete it 
by June 4, 2005. Section 4 directed NHTSA to develop and evaluate a 
test dummy that represents a 10-year-old child for use in testing child 
restraints, and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of 
the dummy within 1 year following that evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Named in memory of Anton Skeen, a 4-year-old who was killed 
in a car crash in Washington State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, Sections 3 and 4 of Anton's Law provide as 
follows:

    Section 3. Improvement of Safety of Child Restraints in 
Passenger Motor Vehicles.
    (a) In General. The Secretary of Transportation (hereafter 
referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall initiate a rulemaking 
proceeding to establish performance requirements for child 
restraints, including booster seats, for the restraint of children 
weighing more than 50 pounds.
    (b) Elements for Consideration. In the rulemaking proceeding 
required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
    (1) consider whether to include injury performance criteria for 
child restraints, including booster seats and other products for use 
in passenger motor vehicles for the restraint of children weighing 
more than 50 pounds, under the requirements established in the 
rulemaking proceeding;
    (2) consider whether to establish performance requirements for 
seat belt fit when used with booster seats and other belt guidance 
devices;
    (3) consider whether to address situations where children 
weighing more than 50 pounds only have access to seating positions 
with lap belts, such as allowing tethered child restraints for such 
children; and
    (4) review the definition of the term ``booster seat'' in 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 213 under section 571.213 
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to determine if it is 
sufficiently comprehensive.
    (c) Completion. The Secretary shall complete the rulemaking 
proceeding required by subsection (a) not later than 30 months after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    Section 4. Development of Anthropomorphic Test Device Simulating 
a 10-Year-Old Child.
    (a) Development and Evaluation. Not later than 24 months after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop 
and evaluate an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-
year-old child

[[Page 51721]]

for use in testing child restraints used in passenger motor 
vehicles.
    (b) Adoption by Rulemaking. Within 1 year following the 
development and evaluation carried out under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of 
an anthropomorphic test device as developed under subsection (a).

II. Overview of NHTSA's Responses to Sections 3 and 4 of Anton's Law

    Prior to the enactment of Anton's Law, the agency began several 
rulemaking proceedings on matters that were later included in sections 
3 and 4 of the Act. The agency continued work on those rulemakings 
following enactment of Anton's Law and later made final decisions in 
those rulemakings, taking into consideration the elements specified in 
the statute. As a result of those deliberations, NHTSA considered and 
addressed all but section 3(b)(2) of the statute and has responded to 
one of the two elements of section 4. The following discussion 
describes the elements of section 3 and section 4 of Anton's Law that 
have already been addressed by NHTSA, and the outstanding elements that 
are now addressed in this NPRM.

a. Sections Already Addressed

Sections 3(b)(1), 4(a) and 4(b)
    Subsequent to the enactment of Anton's Law, the agency amended 
FMVSS No. 213 to expand the applicability of the standard from child 
restraints recommended for use by children weighing up to 50 lb to 
restraints recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb (30 kilograms) 
(June 2, 2003; 68 FR 37620; Docket No. NHTSA-03-15351). The rulemaking 
was part of a planned agency upgrade to FMVSS No. 213, and also related 
to provisions in the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability 
and Documentation Act (TREAD Act; Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) 
addressing child passenger safety.\2\ The agency expressly considered 
the directive of Anton's Law in that TREAD Act final rule, determining 
that extending the scope of the standard to 65 lb accorded with section 
3(b)(1). (68 FR at 37645.) The TREAD Act final rule adopted the 
weighted 6-year-old dummy for use in FMVSS No. 213 testing after the 
agency concluded that the dummy was suitable for testing the structural 
integrity of child restraints (68 FR at 37647) and that use of the 
dummy would ensure that booster seats certified up to 65 lb would not 
fail structurally in a crash. The agency codified the weighted 6-year-
old dummy at 49 CFR part 572, Subpart S (69 FR 42595; July 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The rule also updated procedures for testing child 
restraints, including incorporating other improved test dummies for 
performance testing and updating the bench seat used to test 
restraints to the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the TREAD Act final rule, the agency considered the merits of 
extending the standard to restraints recommended for use by children 
weighing up to 80 lb, but decided against that action because there was 
not then any test dummy that could adequately assess the dynamic 
performance of a child restraint in restraining an 80 lb child. 
Although work was underway on the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test 
dummy, the dummy was not ready in time for incorporation into that 
rulemaking. NHTSA believed that expanding the standard to restraints 
for children weighing up to 80 lb would not be meaningful in the 
absence of a dummy of suitable size and weight that could assess the 
conformance of the restraints with the performance requirements of the 
standard.
    In September 2004, the agency completed its evaluation of the 
suitability of the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy as a compliance test 
device, in accordance with section 4(a) of Anton's Law.\3\ NHTSA 
determined the dummy was sufficiently sound to be proposed as an FMVSS 
No. 213 test dummy for testing child restraints recommended for 
children who weigh up to 80 lb. Accordingly, the agency is issuing 
today's NPRM to incorporate the dummy into FMVSS No. 213 as a test 
instrument. This proposal is part of a long-term agency plan on child 
passenger safety (Planning Document, 65 FR 70687; November 27, 2000; 
Docket NHTSA 7938), and also fulfills section 4(b) of Anton's Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten Year Old Dummy 
(HIII-10C),'' Stammen; Vehicle Research and Test Center, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (September 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3(b)(3)
    NHTSA began a rulemaking in 1999 exploring whether to permit child 
restraints to be tethered in certain FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests in 
which they must now pass untethered. This rulemaking related to whether 
there are child restraints for children who only have access to lap 
belts. After considering all available data and information and section 
3(b)(3) of Anton's Law, the agency decided that an amendment was not 
appropriate and withdrew the rulemaking in 2004 (see 69 FR 16202; March 
29, 2004, Docket No. 5891).
    A number of restraints are available that can accommodate a child 
weighing 50 lb (22 kg) or more at a seating position equipped with a 
lap belt only. The Britax Wizard and the Britax Marathon are 
convertible child restraints with 5-point harnesses that are 
recommended for use in a forward-facing configuration by children 
weighing up to 65 lb (29.5 kg). The Britax Husky is a forward-facing 
only child restraint with a 5-point harness that is certified for 
children weighing up to 80 lb (36.3 kg). The Nania Airway LX Booster is 
a forward-facing child restraint that can be used with its 5-point 
harness by children weighing up to 50 lb (22 kg) with a lap belt. This 
availability illustrates that FMVSS No. 213 is not a deterrent in the 
production of child restraints for children who only have access to lap 
belts.
Section 3(b)(4)
    When Anton's Law was enacted, FMVSS No. 213 applied to child 
restraints recommended for children who weigh up to 50 lb. As noted 
above, following enactment of Anton's Law, NHTSA expanded the 
applicability of the standard to child restraints recommended for 
children who weigh up to 65 lb. An effect of expanding the standard's 
application was to expand also the category of ``booster seats'' 
subject to FMVSS No. 213 to boosters recommended for children up to 65 
lb (68 FR 37620, supra). That is, FMVSS No. 213 would apply not only to 
boosters recommended for children up to 50 lb, but to boosters 
recommended for use up to 65 lb as well.
    The ``booster seat'' term was made more comprehensive in that 
rulemaking, and would be made even more so by today's NPRM. In 
proposing to expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to restraints 
recommended for use by children weighing up to 80 lb, NHTSA believes 
that the term ``booster seat'' would be sufficiently comprehensive to 
encompass the overwhelming majority of booster seats manufactured for 
and used by children.

b. Sections Not Previously Addressed in Rulemaking

Section 3(b)(2)
    Prior to the enactment of Anton's Law, NHTSA issued an NPRM 
exploring the issue of whether to require seat belt positioning devices 
to be labeled with a warning that the devices should not be used with 
children under the age of 6 (64 FR 44164; August 13, 1999; Docket No. 
99-5100). The rulemaking was withdrawn in 2004 because there did not 
appear to be sufficient safety need for the requirement and because the 
agency planned to conduct up-to-date

[[Page 51722]]

research on current devices (69 FR 13503; March 23, 2004; Docket No. 
5100). As discussed in today's NPRM, the agency has considered 
performance requirements for seat belt fit for booster seats or for 
belt guidance devices in accordance with section 3(b)(2) of Anton's Law 
and has decided against such rulemaking at this time.
Section 4(b)
    Section 4(b) of Anton's Law requires the initiation of a rulemaking 
proceeding for the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device that 
simulates a 10-year-old child for use in testing child restraints used 
in passenger motor vehicles. Today's NPRM responds to section 4(b) by 
proposing to adopt the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy into FMVSS No. 213 
as a test device used to test child restraints recommended for children 
weighing over 50 lb. NHTSA is also issuing an NPRM proposing to adopt 
specifications and performance requirements for the dummy into 49 CFR 
Part 572, Subpart T.

c. Summary of Responses to Public Law 107-318

    In summary, NHTSA has considered and addressed all but one of the 
elements set forth in section 3 of the statute and has responded to 
section 4(a). Today's NPRM addresses the one outstanding element of 
section 3 (whether there should be belt fit performance requirements), 
and responds to section 4(b) by initiating rulemaking for the adoption 
of the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy into FMVSS No. 213. It also would 
further expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to restraints 
recommended for children up to 80 lb.

III. Expanded Coverage and Improved Evaluation of Booster Seats

a. Introduction

    There has been considerable interest over the years in expanding 
the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to increase the likelihood that 
child restraints (booster seats) that are recommended for older 
children will perform adequately in a crash. This interest goes hand-
in-hand with efforts to increase booster seat use among children who 
have outgrown their child safety seat, but who cannot adequately fit a 
vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system. NHTSA recommends that children 
who have outgrown child safety seats should be properly restrained in 
booster seats until they are at least 8 years old, unless they are at 
least 4'9 inches tall. The goal of expanding the applicability of FMVSS 
No. 213 is to ensure booster seats that are recommended for children 
over the current weight limit meet the dynamic test requirements of the 
standard.
    In the TREAD Act final rule, the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 was 
expanded to child restraint systems for children who weigh up to 65 lb. 
The agency also specified the use of the weighted 6-year-old (62-lb) 
test dummy to test restraints at the upper weight range. Use of the 
weighted dummy was viewed as an interim measure until the Hybrid III 
10-year-old dummy was available.
    The agency has completed its evaluation of the Hybrid III 10-year-
old test dummy and is satisfied that the dummy's performance merits its 
proposal for use in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests. (Hereinafter, the 
10-year-old dummy is referred to as the ``HIII-10C dummy.'') In a 
separate NPRM published on July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40281; Docket No. NHTSA 
2004-24217), the agency has proposed incorporation of the HIII-10C into 
49 CFR part 572, ``Anthropomorphic test dummies.''
    Today's NPRM seeks to enhance child passenger safety by way of the 
proposals discussed below. It should be noted, however, that data 
indicate that booster seats are generally very effective items of 
equipment. Based on its survey of vehicle crashes,\4\ Children's 
Hospital of Philadelphia found that the odds of injury, adjusting for 
child, driver, crash, and vehicle characteristics, were 59 percent 
lower for children between the ages of 4 and 7 years in belt 
positioning booster seats than in seat belts alone. Children in belt 
positioning booster seats experienced no abdomen, neck/spine/back, or 
lower extremity injuries, while children in seat belts alone suffered 
injuries to all body regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Children's Hospital of Philadelphia performed a cross 
sectional study of children ages 4 to 7 years in crashes of insured 
vehicles in 15 states. Data was collected via telephone and 
insurance claims records for 3616 crashes involving 4243 children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, current booster seat designs provide a high level of 
protection. Today's proposals are intended to ensure that all booster 
seats maintain this level of safety. If made final, the proposals would 
ensure that booster seats are robustly assessed to make sure that they 
would perform soundly in a 30 mile per hour (mph) crash when used by 
children at the upper limit of their recommended weight range, 
typically up to 80 lb. Booster seats recommended for children weighing 
up to 65 lb are now subject to FMVSS No. 213 testing, but they are now 
tested with a 50-lb instrumented dummy and with a 62-lb uninstrumented 
dummy. The standard does not now evaluate the boosters' performance 
with an instrumented test dummy weighing between 62 and 80 lb. Under 
today's NPRM, the ability of the boosters recommended for children 
weighing up to 80 lb to meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 
213 would be assessed with the 77-lb Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy.
    This notice addresses three issues. First, we propose to test 
restraints with the HIII-10C dummy, i.e., the dummy itself and how 
FMVSS No. 213 would be amended to reflect use of the dummy. Second, we 
explore whether the mass of belt-positioning boosters with seat backs 
should be limited, i.e., whether in a frontal crash, forces generated 
by the mass of the seat back could overload the child occupant's chest. 
Third and last, in Appendix A to this NPRM, we discuss the agency's 
consideration of whether FMVSS No. 213 should be extended to belt-
positioning devices.

b. Proposed Amendments to FMVSS No. 213

1. Hybrid III-10C Test Dummy
    NHTSA has been interested in a test dummy between the sizes of a 6-
year-old and a 5th percentile adult female for several years.\5\ In 
early 2000, NHTSA asked the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Dummy 
Family Task Group (DFTG) to develop a test dummy representative of a 
10-year-old child. The agency wanted a dummy with a basic construction 
that would allow the dummy to be positioned in erect seated, slouched 
seated, standing, and kneeling postures. The ability of the test dummy 
to be positioned in a slouched posture was of particular importance 
because children whose legs are too short to allow them to bend their 
knees when sitting upright against a vehicle seat back will slouch down 
when seated directly on a vehicle seat in order to bend their knees 
over the edge of the seat for comfort.\6\ It was thought that slouching 
could affect the placement of the lap belt portion of the seat belt on 
the abdomen \7\ and thereby affect real-world performance of the seat 
belt in a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A 5th percentile adult female is approximately the size of a 
12-year-old.
    \6\ ``Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit and NASS 
Injury Analysis,'' Klinich et al., DOT HS 808 248, November 1994.
    \7\ Discussion of the slouch factor's contribution to poor belt 
fit can also be found at 64 FR at 44164, 44169 (August 13, 1999; 
Docket No. NHTSA 99-5100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HIII-10C dummy was envisioned as having the same general 
construction

[[Page 51723]]

as the adult dummies of the Hybrid III dummy family, but scaled to the 
average dimensions of a 10-year-old child. The most recent growth 
charts for children in the USA, developed by the National Center for 
Health Statistics (NCHS) for the Center for Disease Control (CDC 2000) 
indicate that the average 10-year-old child weighs 79.3 lb (36.05 kg), 
has a standing height of 56 in (1,422 mm) and a seated height of 28 in 
(711 mm). The Hybrid III-10C is close to its human counterpart with a 
weight of 77.6 lb, a standing height of 51 inches and a seated height 
of 28 inches. The dummy was developed with instrumentation measuring 
injury parameters for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, pelvis, femur, 
and tibia.
    The agency began evaluating the first production prototype of the 
HIII-10C test dummy in 2002. Extensive evaluation of the dummy 
continued through mid-2004. The evaluation has demonstrated good 
biofidelity, repeatability, reproducibility, and durability. \8\ The 
agency has tentatively concluded that the Hybrid III-10C would provide 
an accurate representation of a 10-year-old child for the testing 
proposed in this NPRM. The agency is concurrently proposing 
incorporation of the Hybrid III-10C test dummy 49 CFR part 572, 
Anthropomorphic test devices, by way of an NPRM published on July 13, 
2005 (70 FR 40281; Docket No. NHTSA 2004-24217).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten Year Old Dummy 
(HIII-10C),'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Extending the Applicability of the Standard
    Based on the availability of the Hybrid III-10C test dummy, the 
agency is now proposing to extend the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to 
include child restraint systems, including booster seats, recommended 
for use by children weighing up to 80 lb (36 kg).\9\ Under the 
proposal, all child restraint systems, including booster seats, 
recommended for children weighing more than 50 lb, would be required to 
meet the specified injury criteria when tested with both the Hybrid III 
6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, Subpart N) (HIII-6C) and the HIII-
10C test dummies. All child restraint systems, including booster seats, 
certified for use by children weighing between 40 and 50 lb would be 
required to meet the specified injury criteria when tested with the 
HIII-6C test dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ It is noted that the proposed extension would harmonize 
FMVSS No. 213 with ECE Regulation 44, in that both standards would 
regulate child restraint systems recommended for use by children 
weighing up to 36 kg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For convenience, Table 1 sets forth how test dummies are currently 
used in FMVSS No. 213, and the changes being proposed by this NPRM.

                        Table 1.--Use of Dummies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Dummies currently
     Recommended mass range             used in         Proposed change
           (Kilograms)            compliance testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not greater than 5 kg (0 to 11    Newborn...........   Unchanged
 lb).
Greater than 5 but not greater    Newborn, CRABI....  Unchanged.
 than 10 kg (11 to 22 lb).
Greater than 10 but not greater    CRABI, HIII 3-     Unchanged.
 than 18 kg (22 to 40 lb).         year-old.
Greater than 18 kg but not        HIII 6-year-old...  Unchanged.
 greater than 22.7 kg (40 to 50
 lb).
Greater than 22.7 kg (50 to 80    Weighted HIII 6-    HIII 6-year-old,
 lb).                              year-old.           HIII-10C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has tentatively decided that it would no longer use the 
weighted HIII 6-year-old dummy (which weighs 62 lb) to test child 
restraints because HIII 6-year-old and the HIII-10C dummies appear 
sufficient to evaluate the performance of a child restraint recommended 
for children weighing over 50 lb.\10\ Comments are also requested on 
whether the HIII-10C dummy should be used to test any child restraint 
that is recommended for use by children weighing over 50 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ While provisions providing for using the weighted Hybrid 
III-6C test dummy in testing would be eliminated from FMVSS No. 213 
under the proposal, specification for the test dummy would be 
maintained in Part 572 because of the potential for future research 
and evaluation involving the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency proposes to provide manufacturers with two years of lead 
time from the date of a final rule. Optional early compliance with the 
requirements would be permitted.
3. Injury Criteria for the Hybrid III-10C Test Dummy
a. Proposed Criteria
    The performance criteria that a child restraint must meet when 
restraining a test dummy would generally be unchanged, except for the 
buckle release requirements as described below. The requirements 
regarding dynamic performance, force distribution, installation, child 
restraint belts and buckles and flammability would thus be generally 
uniform for all restraints, including those tested with the HIII-10C 
dummy.
    Consistent with current FMVSS No. 213 requirements, we are 
proposing to adopt the following maximums for the injury criteria 
measurements for the Hybrid III-10C: HIC36 = 1000; chest 
acceleration = 60 g's (3 millisecond clip); head excursion = 813 
millimeters (mm) for untethered condition,\11\ head excursion = 720 mm 
for tethered condition; and knee excursion = 915 mm. Given the 
effectiveness of booster seats currently in use, the agency tentatively 
concludes the proposed injury values would be appropriate to ensure the 
continued effectiveness of child restraints recommended for children 
weighing up to 80 lb. While injury data for older children in booster 
seats is very limited at this time, the agency is not aware of injuries 
unique to children in booster seats that would necessitate separate and 
differing injury criteria limits. The agency believes that the injury 
criteria proposed in this document would ensure that the effectiveness 
seen across all types of child restraint systems would be maintained 
for restraints recommended for children weighing up to 80 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In adopting more stringent head excursion regulations, 
boosters were excluded from the more stringent head excursion 
requirements because they are not tethered (see, 64 FR 10786; March 
5, 1999; Docket No. 98-3390).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2003, the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center 
(VRTC) tested eight booster seat models with the HIII-10C dummy in sled 
tests replicating the FMVSS No. 213 test configuration. Tests were also 
performed on two HIII-10C test dummies restrained by a lap/shoulder 
belt only, one was seated upright and

[[Page 51724]]

one slouched. There was only one failure in the test series, a booster 
seat with a measured HIC (36) value of 1018, just marginally above the 
1000 limit. Chest resultant accelerations and head and knee excursions 
were all well within the proposed limits in all tests with the FMVSS 
No. 213 pulse.\12\ Test results are shown in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy (HIII-10C) Injury 
Criteria,'' Stammen; Vehicle Research and Test Center, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (September 2004).

                                       Table 2.--HIII-10C Injury Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Chest Acc
              Test No.                         Seat              HIC 36        (G)       Head  (mm)   Knee  (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFF1................................  Cosco Gnd Explorer....          679         44.4          353          665
EFF1................................  Evenflo Right Fit.....          568         43.8          371          687
EFF2................................  Century Next Step.....          607         46.8          438          710
EFF2................................  Cosco Voyager.........         1018         50.3          434          750
EFF3................................  Graco Grand Cargo.....          993         54.6          444          745
EFF3................................  Century Breverra......          659         45.7          422          714
EFF4................................  Britax Bodyguard......          480         39.5          410          743
EFF4................................  Baby Trend Recaro.....          356         45.5          513          738
EFF5................................  No Booster............         1105         45.7          445          801
EFF5................................  No Booster............          855         42.2          385          768
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The post-impact buckle force release requirement (S5.4.3.5(b)) 
currently differs according to the mass of the test dummy or dummies 
used in testing a child restraint, and would continue to do so under 
this proposal. Currently, S5.4.3.5(b) requires each child seat belt 
buckle to release when a force of not more than 71 N is applied, while 
tension (simulating a child restrained in the child seat) is applied to 
the buckle. Tension is applied because a child in the seat could impose 
a load on the belt buckle, which increases the difficulty of releasing 
it. (This requirement typically does not apply to a booster seat 
because boosters do not generally include a buckle as part of its 
structure.) If a child restraint were designed such that it would be 
tested with the HIII-10C dummy under this NPRM and had a buckle as part 
of the restraint's belt assembly, a tension of 437 \13\ Newtons would 
be applied when the buckle is tested according to the test procedures 
(S6.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This value was calculated using the same ratio of dummy 
mass vs. applied tension used when the agency adopted the weighted 
6-year-old dummy into FMVSS No. 213 for use in compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Criteria Under Development
    In developing injury criteria, VRTC also recognized a need to 
explore development of abdominal injury criteria for the HIII-10C. The 
kinematics that result in this type of injury are commonly referred to 
as ``submarining.'' Submarining is when the pelvis becomes unrestrained 
by the lap belt portion of a safety belt assembly and then slides under 
the lap belt in a frontal impact. As a result, the belt is free to 
enter the abdominal cavity and cause injury to the unprotected internal 
organs and lumbar spine.
    VRTC developed a ratio, the abdominal injury ratio (AIR), which 
uses impulse calculations from the iliac compressive and lumbar shear 
forces to identify dummy kinematics associated with submarining. 
Preliminary testing indicated that the AIR might provide a basis for 
evaluating submarining potential.
    At this time the agency is not proposing to establish injury 
criteria based on the AIR calculation. The agency has limited data with 
respect to the AIR parameter and additional testing is needed to 
evaluate its effectiveness in predicting abdominal loading in a 
consistent and accurate manner. However, the agency intends to continue 
efforts in developing an objective means to measure and evaluate 
abdominal loading, both through continued evaluation of the AIR 
parameter as well as alternative methods of measurement.
    We note that when knee excursion was originally established in 
FMVSS No. 213, we stated that its purpose was to prevent manufacturers 
from controlling the amount of head excursion by designing restraints 
that permit an occupant to slide downward and forward, legs first (44 
FR 72133). In the context of knee excursion, the agency referred to an 
occupant sliding legs first under a lap belt as ``submarining.'' 
However, knee excursion is one of two potential major consequences of 
``submarining.'' Regarding AIR parameters, ``submarining'' can also 
result in movement of the belt from the pelvic area into the abdominal 
cavity. This does not necessarily result in excessive knee excursion. 
Discussions of ``submarining'' in the remainder of this document focus 
on the factors related to the AIR parameters.
c. Chest Deflection and Mass Limit for Boosters
    We are requesting comment on eliminating the 4.4 kg mass limit for 
belt-positioning boosters. In place of the mass limit, we are 
considering the incorporation of the in-position chest deflection 
requirements from FMVSS No. 208 for the Hybrid III-3C, -6C, and 10C 
test dummies. The agency believes that chest deflection requirements 
may provide an alternative to the use of a mass limit for preventing 
excessive belt forces from being loaded on a child occupant.

Background

    Presently, S5.4.3.2, Direct restraint, of FMVSS No. 213 requires 
that:

    Except for a child restraint system whose mass is less than 4.4 
kg, * * * each Type I and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that 
is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in 
accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from 
the mass of the system[.]

    In a March 16, 1994 notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency 
proposed to prohibit child restraint designs that would result in a 
vehicle's lap belt, or lap portion of a lap/shoulder belt belts, 
imposing any load on a child resulting from the mass of the restraint 
system (59 FR 12225; Docket No. 74-09; Notice 35). In response, several 
commenters stated that the proposal would eliminate high-back belt 
positioning booster seats from the market because these restraint 
systems impose a load on a child through the lap belt portion of a 
vehicle's belt assembly. Commenters also stated that there was

[[Page 51725]]

no apparent safety problem with belt-positioning boosters that would 
justify a prohibition. Additionally, they stated that there would be no 
practical way to measure the load imposed on a test dummy seated in a 
belt-positioning booster.
    In response to these comments, the agency excluded child restraints 
with a mass less than 4 kg from the belt loading provisions in S5.4.3.2 
(60 FR 35126; July 6, 1995; Docket No. 74-09, Notice 42). In that final 
rule, we explained that it was not our intention to prohibit belt-
positioning boosters, nor did we believe that there was a sufficient 
safety problem to warrant such a prohibition. At the time of the March 
1995 final rule, as currently, there was no test dummy available to 
measure abdominal loading reliably. Additionally, there was no 
established method for measuring seatback load on a child dummy or an 
associated injury correlation. Nonetheless, the agency stated that seat 
back loads could, at some level, injure a child occupant in a crash.
    As an alternative to developing a method to measure and identify 
excessive loads, the agency established the mass limit to prevent 
future injuries resulting from overloading a child occupant from a 
``massive seat back'' on a child restraint. The 4 kg mass limit was 
based on the agency's understanding of the mass range of belt-
positioning boosters then on the U.S. market and the absence of 
indication of a safety problem with such restraints, and was consistent 
with requirements in Europe. The limit was later increased to 4.4 kg 
after a child restraint manufacturer petitioned the agency, stating 
that it also marketed a seat with a mass of almost 4.4 kg and that the 
seat should have been a part of the assessment (61 FR 30824; June 18, 
1996; Docket No. 74-09, Notice 46).
    Since that time, the agency decided that it would not enforce the 
requirements of S5.4.3.2 against belt-positioning seats that have a 
mass greater than 4.4 kg until further notice (Letter to John 
Stipancich; April 11, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA 2003-15005-1).

Recent Developments

    Recent agency research has tentatively led us to reconsider the 
current mass limit. In developing the injury criteria for the Hybrid 
III-10C \14\, VRTC conducted a number of tests to examine the impact of 
belt-positioning booster seat mass on child occupants. VRTC conducted 
tests to explore the potential for more massive booster seats to cause 
excessive belt forces. The following Table 4 provides the data 
collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy (HIII-10C) Injury Criteria 
Development,'' supra.

                    Table 4.--Lap and Shoulder Belt Forces for Booster and Non-Booster Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Lap force     Shoulder
                    Seat                       Mass  (kg)   Mass  (lb)   Weight rating      (N)       force  (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosco Grand Explorer........................         1.50         3.30  40-80 lb               4707         5833
Evenflo Right Fit...........................         1.42         3.12  40-80 lb               4238         6446
Century Next Step...........................         4.28         9.42  30-100 lb              2125         5525
Cosco Voyager...............................         3.09         6.80  30-80 lb               2739         6494
Graco Grand Cargo...........................         3.44         7.57  30-80 lb               1454         5987
Century Breverra............................         4.25         9.35  30-80 lb               1269         5665
Britax Bodyguard............................         5.98        13.16  40-100 lb              1690         6108
Baby Trend Recaro...........................         8.87        19.51  30-80 lb               2283         6436
No Booster..................................  ...........  ...........  ..............         2781         5684
No Booster..................................  ...........  ...........  ..............         1965         5348
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note: The Cosco Grand Explorer and the Evenflo Right Fit have no 
back. All other booster seats in this evaluation are high-back belt-
positioning booster seats.

    While limited, the VRTC data did not demonstrate a correlation 
between seat mass and belt force. Because the VRTC tests provide a 
limited data set, we are requesting data on the relationship between 
the mass of belt-positioning boosters and belt loads on child 
occupants.
    Although the VRTC data did not demonstrate a mass-belt force 
correlation, we are still concerned about the potential for excessively 
heavy high-back belt-positioning seats to cause loading on a child, 
crushing the chest between the booster seat back and the shoulder belt. 
To explore this concern, VRTC also examined the relationship between 
seat mass and the measured chest deflection of a child test dummy. VRTC 
ran tests with various booster seats installed according to the 
restraint manufacturers' instructions, except that if a booster seat 
was equipped with a tether the tether was not employed.

           Table 5.--Booster Seat Mass Versus Chest Deflection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Chest
                     Seat                        Mass  (kg)   deflection
                                                                 (mm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Century Next Step.............................         4.28         34.1
Cosco Voyager.................................         3.09         33.7
Graco Grand Cargo.............................         3.44         38.1
Century Breverra..............................         4.25         33.4
Britax Bodyguard..............................         5.98         28.7
Baby Trend Recaro.............................         8.87           41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initial data show that the heaviest booster tested in the agency's 
limited test series resulted in the highest measured chest deflection 
with the HIII-10C test dummy. However, the second heaviest booster 
resulted in the lowest measured chest deflection. Injury assessment 
reference values (IARVs) for the 10-year-old dummy have been developed 
for FMVSS Nos. 208 and 213 research testing.\15\ The agency is 
considering proposing a chest deflection limit of 44 mm, which is a 
value that falls between the IARV for the 6-year-old out-of-position 
test requirement and the 5th percentile female in-position limits. All 
of the booster seats tested measured below the chest deflection limit 
of 44 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Hybrid III 10 Year Old Dummy (HIII-10C) Injury 
Criteria,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the TREAD Act final rule, the agency declined to adopt chest 
deflection as a measured injury parameter in FMVSS No. 213 because of 
the lack of evidence that chest injuries are occurring in the real 
world. Further, existing restraints were shown generally to have 
difficulty in meeting the FMVSS No. 208 chest deflection requirements. 
The agency stated in the TREAD Act

[[Page 51726]]

final rule that we were concerned that restraint redesigns for the 
purposes of meeting chest injury criteria could compromise other 
aspects of injury protection.
    However, the recent data are causing the agency to reconsider chest 
deflection criteria for belt-positioning boosters, particularly if 
there is a possibility that these boosters may become more massive in 
the future to accommodate larger children. To address the potential of 
booster seat mass loading a child through the lap/shoulder belt, we are 
considering establishing chest deflection criteria. We request comment 
on the merits of this approach.

IV. Performance Criteria for Belt Fit

    Section 3(b)(2) of Anton's Law directs the agency to consider 
establishing performance requirements for booster seats and other belt 
guidance devices regarding belt fit. Several studies, described below, 
have explored the extent to which booster seats differ in how they 
affect the fit of a vehicle's belts on a child. The agency has analyzed 
the belt fit studies and is unable to demonstrate that small 
differences in belt fit resulting from various booster seats translate 
into associated improvements in the dynamic performance of a belt 
system in a crash. Therefore, the agency is not proposing performance 
criteria for safety belt fit for booster seats or other belt guidance 
devices, but will continue development of tools necessary to identify 
improper belt loading; e.g. development of AIR injury criteria.

a. IIHS Study

    In a small-scale study involving static testing, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety \16\ (IIHS) noted that belt fit varies 
depending upon a child's physique and belt-positioning booster 
design.\17\ IIHS evaluated belt-fit with and without booster seats in 
the rear seats of three different vehicles (two sedans and a minivan) 
using a Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy (HIII-6C), along with three 
children of varying ages, heights and weights: a 4 year old child, 39 
inches tall, 39 pounds; a 5 year 4 month old child, 45 inches tall, 42 
pounds; and a 6 year 11 month old child, 45 inches tall, 62 pounds. 
Each child was positioned in each vehicle while seated in each of six 
booster seats selected by IIHS, and in one trial positioned directly on 
the vehicle seat cushion. The test dummy was positioned in each vehicle 
while seated in each of 25 booster seats selected by IIHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ IIHS is a non-profit group focused on motor vehicle safety 
and is funded by the insurance industry.
    \17\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2001-10359-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IIHS's data demonstrated that some booster seats improved the belt 
fit for all of the children in the study, some booster seats did not 
improve fit, and some worsened belt fit. In determining a ``good fit,'' 
IIHS relied on NHTSA's guidelines regarding proper fit of a child 
restraint device, i.e., that the lap portion of a belt system should 
rest on the upper thighs to minimize instances of submarining and 
abdominal injury. In evaluation with the HIII-6C, IIHS determined that 
only a small number of the booster seats tested routed the lap belt 
properly. In some instances, the booster seat routed the lap portion of 
the belt directly over test dummy's abdomen.
    The IIHS report expressed concern that poor belt fit may not be 
identified through dynamic testing of child restraint systems because 
dynamic testing may not replicate some critical occupant kinematics and 
injury patterns of real children. IIHS cited the inability of current 
test dummies to assess abdominal injury risk from improperly positioned 
lap belts. IIHS concluded that even if a new test dummy were to include 
instrumentation to measure abdominal loads, it is unlikely that a test 
dummy would submarine in a dynamic test because a dummy typically has a 
rigid spine and molded hips.

b. NHTSA Studies

    In response to Anton's Law, the agency conducted two studies to 
examine the static belt fit of a vehicle's safety belt given various 
seating positions, dummies, and restraint types. The reports can be 
found in the docket for this rulemaking.
1. ``Static Evaluation of Belt Fit for Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old 
and 5th Female Dummies in Rear Outboard Seating Positions''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Louden, VRTC NHTSA, November 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Survey Approach. The first study examined belt fit in 20 
passenger vehicles, ranging from model year (MY) 1999 to 2004, for lap 
and shoulder belts in the outboard rear position. To achieve a 
representative sample of the vehicle fleet, the survey fleet was 
comprised of three compact cars, three mid-size cars, five large size 
cars, five sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and four minivans. Some of 
these vehicles had adjustable shoulder belts.
    The vehicle seats were evaluated with a combination of the Hybrid 
III 5th percentile adult female, the HIII-6C and the HIII-10C test 
dummies, with each dummy seated directly on the seat cushion and 
properly buckled. The female test dummy was tested in all of the 
vehicles, while the child test dummies were tested at an outboard 
seating position in 12 of the 20 test vehicles.
    In addition to determining belt fit with the dummies seated 
directly on a vehicle seat, we also used a small number of belt 
positioning boosters with the HIII-6C and HIII-10C test dummies. The 
test employed three booster seats: a high back booster without a lap 
belt guide, a high back booster with a lap belt guide, and a backless 
booster seat.\19\ The HIII-6C test dummy was tested in all of the 
booster seats, while the HIII-10C test dummy was tested only in the 
backless booster seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A backless booster seat may list a maximum recommended 
height, but are only recommended for use in a seating position that 
has a head rest or where a child's ears are below the top of a 
vehicle's seat back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The seating procedure used for each dummy was the same. The dummies 
were placed in the center of the seating position with their backs 
touching the seat back. The legs were bent over the front edge of the 
seat, if possible. Otherwise, the legs were positioned straight out in 
front of the dummy. The belt was then placed over the test dummy's 
torso and buckled. The shoulder belt was pulled out two to three times 
and allowed to fall naturally onto the torso. When a booster seat was 
used, it was positioned in the center of the seating position, the 
dummy was placed in the booster seat, and the vehicle belt was routed 
per the child restraint manufacturer's instructions.
    Based on a 1992-1993 survey, VRTC determined proper belt fit on the 
dummy as the shoulder belt's fitting between the neck and shoulder at 
an angle of approximately 55-56 degrees from the centerline of the test 
dummy, and the lap belt's fitting over the pelvic area and upper 
thigh.\20\ Each dummy was marked with tape showing where the belts 
should be properly positioned on each dummy. A good belt fit was 
determined by comparing the position of a vehicle's belt to the tape 
markings. Both seating position and belt fit were judged to be good 
when (1) A dummy's back was against the seatback, (2) its legs were 
bent at the knee joint over the front edge of the seat without 
slouching, (3) the shoulder belt remained across the torso without 
getting onto the neck or out onto the shoulder, and (4) the lap belt 
was on the pelvic bone or top of the

[[Page 51727]]

thighs. The quality of belt fit was then quantitatively rated based on 
the difference between the location of the belt compared to the 
location of the tape markings on the test dummy at three critical 
points: The shoulder belt at the neckline, the shoulder belt at the 
torso, and the lap belt at the center of the pelvis. These three 
numbers were then averaged to produce a rating of poor, fair, or good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Improved design for safety belts,'' Chambers, Sullivan 
and Duffy, June 1993. DOT HS 808-082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Results: The results of the survey demonstrated that generally, 
booster seats improved the rating for the child dummies. Adjustable 
upper anchorages in the rear seat also generally improved shoulder belt 
fit for all occupant sizes, particularly when used in conjunction with 
a booster seat. In virtually all of the vehicles surveyed, belt fit for 
the HIII-6C and HIII-10C test dummies in the outboard seating position 
improved when belt-positioning devices were used.
    For the HIII-10C test dummy, use of a seat belt alone resulted in 
at least a fair rating 66 percent of the time. Use of the backless 
booster seat improved the seat belt fit from ``fair'' to ``good'' by 62 
percent for the HIII-10C test dummy. For both child test dummies, the 
booster seats had the potential to reduce the incidence of slouching by 
permitting the dummy's legs to bend at the knees for comfort, which is 
not possible when seated directly on the vehicle seat in the belt only.
    While use of booster seats generally improved the rating for the 
child test dummies, not all booster seats equally affected belt fit on 
the two child test dummies. Overall, the HIII-6C fit best in both a 
backless booster seat and a high back booster seat. However, in one 
vehicle, the use of the backless booster seat actually decreased the 
rating for the HIII-10C when compared to the belt only. In that test, 
the backless booster seat raised the test dummy up too high for a 
proper belt fit given the anchorage placement in that vehicle, 
resulting in a ``poor'' rating. This was because the placement of the 
shoulder belt was somewhat suspended in the rear window.
2. ``Static Evaluation of Belt Fit for Hybrid III 6- and 10-Year-Olds'' 
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Static Evaluation of Belt Fit for Hybrid III 6-Year-Old 
and 10-Year-Old,'' Louden, VRTC NHTSA, August 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Survey approach. The second study evaluated belt fit with and 
without booster seats and with aftermarket belt positioning devices in 
the center rear seating position for two different sized child dummies.
    The procedure for this study was similar to that in the first 
study. VRTC evaluated the belt fit with three booster seats: a high 
back booster without lap belt guide, a high back booster with lap 
guide, and a backless booster seat. Also evaluated were three 
aftermarket belt positioning devices. Each belt positioning device was 
recommended by its manufacturer for occupants weighing more than 50 lb. 
Each manufacturer recommended that children under 50 lb be restrained 
in a convertible or booster seat. To provide for a vehicle sample 
population representative of the vehicle fleet, the surveyed vehicles 
ranged from MY 1999 to 2004 and consisted of three compact cars, three 
mid-sized cars, three large size cars, five SUVs, and three minivans. 
Each vehicle was equipped with a lap and shoulder belt in the center 
rear position. The study used the Hybrid III-6C and -10C test dummies. 
Dummy seating procedures and determination of belt fit were the same as 
in the first VRTC study.
    ii. Results: The second survey also demonstrated that booster seats 
generally improved the belt fit rating for both the Hybrid III 6-year-
old and 10-year-old test dummies. As in the first survey, belt fit for 
the 6-year-old test dummy was generally poor when restrained only with 
a vehicle's belt assembly. In approximately 76 percent of the vehicles 
tested, when the Hybrid III-6C was restrained using only the vehicle 
belt system, the shoulder belt interacted with the neck and/or the lap 
belt was above the pelvic area. In all of the vehicles used in this 
study, the Hybrid III-6C test dummy's legs could not bend at the seat 
edge.
    Belt fit for the HIII-10C was also generally poor when restrained 
with the vehicle's belts only. Approximately 53 percent of the 
positions evaluated resulted in a ``poor'' rating for the HIII-10C test 
dummy and the dummy's legs could only be bent over the vehicle's seat 
edge in 40 percent of the positions.
    With the HIII-6C test dummy, use of a booster seat resulted in 
approximately 82 percent of the positions being evaluated as having a 
``fair'' to ``good'' fit. However, as in the first survey, the 
improvement was not uniform among the three booster seat models. The 
high back booster with lap belt guide resulted in 76 percent of the 
positions evaluated with the HIII-6C dummy being rated ``good,'' the 
high back booster without a lap belt guide resulted in approximately 71 
percent of the positions tested with the HIII-6C being rated ``fair'' 
to ``good,'' and the backless booster seat resulted in 76 percent of 
the positions evaluated being rated ``fair'' to ``good.''
    In some vehicles, positioning the HIII-6C dummy in a booster seat 
resulted in problems. In one instance, use of the backless booster seat 
caused the shoulder belt to come across the neck of the dummy, 
resulting in a ``poor'' fit. The high back booster seat without guides 
had a head restraint that, in some vehicles, interacted with the 
shoulder belt, resulting in a ``poor'' rating.
    For the HIII-10C test dummy, the use of a booster seat improved the 
belt fit from ``poor'' to ``good'' by 90 percent.
    Overall, the belt positioning devices improved belt fit. However, 
it is not known how these devices would affect belt performance when 
tested dynamically. Additionally, there were several issues of concern 
with the devices. Some of the devices wrap the vehicle's shoulder belt 
around them, which can add up to several inches of slack to the belt if 
the device were to fail in a crash. Use of a device that was equipped 
with a hard metal clip with a plastic coating often resulted in the 
belt's becoming twisted near the retractor, the clip being positioned 
close to the center of the dummy (on an area of soft tissue), and the 
lap belt frequently being raised off of the pelvis.

c. Discussion of Static Belt Fit Studies

    The static belt fit surveys generally demonstrated that booster 
seats improve belt fit, but they also demonstrated variation in fit 
that was attributable to the interaction between restraints and vehicle 
designs. Both studies demonstrated that some vehicle-booster seat 
combinations were not as good as others. Some boosters made the belts 
fit the child dummy better in some vehicles than in others.
    While these surveys identified potential for variation, it is 
unknown whether the small variations in belt fit between the restraint 
configurations evaluated in the studies would translate into variations 
in safety benefits in an actual vehicle crash. The point at which belt 
fit degrades the performance of the belts from the point of 
``acceptable'' to ``unacceptable'' has not been determined. Although 
NHTSA believes that belts are better positioned over bony structure of 
the body than over soft tissue, how much variation from the optimal 
placement of the belt should be permitted by a performance standard for 
the fit to be considered ``passing'' is unknown.
    Nor does the agency believe there is a need to make that known. The 
agency believes that the dynamic performance requirements for child 
restraint systems, including booster seats, provide for a better 
evaluation of injury potential than

[[Page 51728]]

a static belt fit test. The standardized test seat assembly specified 
in FMVSS No. 213 has been developed to be representative of existing 
vehicle seat geometries; e.g., seat back and cushion angles, safety 
belt anchorage location, and spacing, and cushion force/deflection 
characteristics. All child restraint systems must meet the injury 
performance criteria in a 30 mph simulated frontal crash on the test 
seat assembly. The seat assembly was updated in the TREAD Act 
rulemaking, supra, and will be used to test child restraints 
manufactured on or after August 1, 2005. We believe that as child 
restraint manufacturers optimize their restraint designs to meet the 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 using the updated 
configuration of the standard test seat assembly, the fit of child 
restraints in real-world vehicles may improve. While NHTSA believes 
that ``proper'' belt fit, especially shoulder belt fit, is largely 
dependent on vehicle design characteristics, the agency also believes 
that this optimization of child restraint design to current vehicle 
seat designs may translate into improved belt fit for children in 
booster seats. In any event, NHTSA believes that FMVSS No. 213's 
dynamic testing requirements provide a true and thorough evaluation of 
the performance of the restraints. Accordingly, a static belt fit 
performance requirement would not provide an additional safety benefit 
commensurate with the burdens of such a rulemaking.
    It should be noted that, as part of the agency's work in response 
to the TREAD Act, we evaluated child restraint performance in vehicles 
tested to the frontal crash program of the New Car Assessment Program 
(NCAP). NCAP placed child restraint systems in the rear seat of 
vehicles that undergo frontal barrier crash tests at 35 mph. Data 
generated to date by testing with the HIII-3C dummy placed in a 
forward-facing child restraint indicate that the performance of a child 
restraint is largely dependent on the vehicle crash parameters, such as 
the vehicle crash pulse, and less dependent on differences in design 
between various restraints.\22\ Accordingly, for the reasons stated 
above, the agency has decided that establishing performance 
requirements for seat belt fit is not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Docket NHTSA-04-18682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Benefits and Costs

    The agency cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. 
However, the agency believes benefits will accrue by assuring child 
restraints can meet the FMVSS No. 213 requirements over the range of 
sizes of children for which they are recommended. Currently, booster 
seats are required to use only a dummy representative of a 3-year-old 
child at the lower end of the weight range and the weighted 6-year-old 
dummy at the upper weight limit per configuration. The weighted 6-year-
old dummy is limited in representing heavier children that the booster 
seats are labeled to accommodate. Inclusion of a test dummy 
representative of a 10-year-old child would facilitate the testing of 
booster seats and other child restraints by causing each restraint to 
be tested with a test dummy better representative of children at the 
upper limit of a specified weight range.
    If adopted, this proposed rule would generally not increase the 
testing that NHTSA conducts of child restraints.\23\ Currently, 
restraints recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb are tested 
with a weighted 6-year-old test dummy. The NPRM proposes to replace the 
weighted 6-year-old dummy with the HIII-10C, rather than add a test 
with the HIII-10C. Thus, the certification responsibilities of 
manufacturers would not generally be affected. The 2004 price of an 
uninstrumented 10-year-old dummy is about $36,550. The specified 
instrumentation costs approximately $59,297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ There are no child restraints that are made only for 
children weighing between 65 and 80 lb that arguable would be newly 
subject to FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we do not believe that the proposed requirements 
would require extensive redesign of existing booster seat designs. We 
tentatively determined that any redesign required would be of minimal 
cost. For further discussion of the benefits and costs, please refer to 
the preliminary regulatory evaluation placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

VI. Submission Of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21) 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments to the docket 
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web 
site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/
Info'' to obtain instructions for filing your comments electronically. 
Please note, if you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF 
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using 
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency 
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that

[[Page 51729]]

date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency 
to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is 
issued), the agency will consider that comment as an informal 
suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
    2. On that page, click on ``simple search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm) type in the four-digit docket number shown at the 
beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-
1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' After typing the docket number, 
click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new 
material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Vehicle Safety Act

    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for 
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 
49 U.S.C. 30111(a). As defined by statute, motor vehicle safety 
standards are to provide minimum standards for motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment performance. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). When prescribing 
such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant, available 
motor vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). The Secretary 
must also consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, 
practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the extent to which 
the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic 
accidents and associated deaths. Id. Responsibility for promulgation of 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards was subsequently delegated to 
NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in 
proposing these amendments to FMVSS No. 213.
    We believe that the proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 213 would be 
practicable. The proposed performance requirements are based on 
existing requirements. Additionally, agency testing has demonstrated 
that child restraint systems currently on the market would be able to 
comply with the proposed requirements.
    We believe that this proposed rule is appropriate for child 
restraints recommended for use by children weighing up to 80 lb. The 
establishment of performance criteria for these restraint systems would 
help ensure that they provide optimized safety benefits for their 
intended occupants, children weighing up to 80 lb. Accordingly, the 
NPRM would meet the need for motor vehicle safety.
    Further, the agency has tentatively determined that the HIII-10C 
test dummy provides an objective tool for determining compliance of a 
child restraint with the proposed requirements. Agency evaluation has 
demonstrated the HIII-10C test dummy provides results that are valid, 
repeatable and reliable.
    Further, as stated above, we are proposing to establish performance 
criteria for child restraint systems intended for children weighing up 
to 80 lb. If made final, the proposed rulemaking would extend current 
performance requirements to these child restraint systems intended for 
heavier children.
    With regard to Anton's Law, we have discussed those statutory 
requirements above. As directed by Anton's Law, the agency has 
initiated and completed rulemaking that (1) considered whether to 
include injury performance criteria for child restraints, including 
booster seats and other products for use in passenger motor vehicles 
for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds (see 68 FR 
37620, supra), (2) considered whether to address situations where 
children weighing more than 50 pounds only have access to seating 
positions with lap belts, such as allowing tethered child restraints 
for such children (see 69 FR 16202, supra), and (3) reviewed the 
definition of the term ``booster seat'' in the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards to determine if it is sufficiently comprehensive (see 
68 FR 37620, supra).
    The outstanding element in section 3 of Anton's Law directing the 
agency to consider whether to establish performance requirements for 
seat belt fit when used with booster seats and other belt guidance 
devices is addressed in this notice. The agency has considered 
performance requirements for seat belt fit for booster seats or for 
belt guidance devices in accordance with Sec.  3(b)(2) of Anton's Law 
and has decided against such rulemaking at this time. Currently, field 
data does not indicate a need for performance requirements for seat 
belt fit for booster seats or for belt guidance devices.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the

[[Page 51730]]

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). 
The Office of Management and Budget did not review this rulemaking 
document under Executive Order 12866.
    We cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. However, the 
agency believes this rulemaking would improve the safety of child 
restraint systems by providing for their more thorough compliance 
testing. The result of this rule would be to provide better assurance 
that each child restraint safely restrains the children for whom the 
restraint is recommended.
    The costs associated with the proposed rulemaking are largely 
attributable to the expense of an instrumented HIII-10YO. The 2004 
price of an uninstrumented 10-year-old dummy is about $36,550. The 
specified instrumentation costs approximately $59,297. This NPRM does 
not require manufacturers to use the test dummy in certifying their 
child restraints. Rather, this NPRM proposes changes to how NHTSA would 
conduct compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213. A complete discussion 
of the costs is provided in the preliminary regulatory evaluation that 
has been included in the docket for this rulemaking.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
NHTSA estimates there to be 13 manufacturers of child restraints, four 
or five of which could be small businesses.
    If adopted, this proposed rule would generally not increase the 
testing that NHTSA conducts of child restraints. The proposal would 
replace testing performed on restraints recommend for children weighing 
up to 65 lb with a weighted 6-year-old test dummy with testing using 
the HIII-10C. Thus, the certification responsibilities of manufacturers 
would not generally be affected. I certify that this NPRM would not 
impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, because these businesses currently must certify their 
products to the dynamic test of Standard No. 213. They typically 
provide the basis for those certifications by dynamically testing their 
products using child test dummies. The effect of this NPRM on most 
child restraints would be to subject them to testing with a new dummy 
in place of an existing one. Testing child restraints on an updated 
seat assembly is not expected to affect the performance of the 
restraints significantly.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency has determined 
that this proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation and the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

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

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid control number from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule would not establish any 
requirements that are considered to be information collection 
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use

[[Page 51731]]

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The agency searched for, but did not find, any voluntary consensus 
standards applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Public Law 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). (Adjusting this amount by the 
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2000 
increases it to $109 million.) This NPRM would not result in a cost of 
$109 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

J. Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

VIII. Appendix A--Extending FMVSS No. 213 to Belt-Positioning Devices

    Over the years, the agency has considered whether to extend FMVSS 
No. 213 to belt-positioning devices. Belt positioning devices alter the 
position of a vehicle lap and shoulder belt and in some cases are 
marketed for the purpose of improving belt fit on children seated 
directly on a vehicle seat without the use of a child restraint system.
    The agency first addressed this issue in the context of responding 
to a petition for rulemaking from the American Academy of Pediatrics 
(AAP). In 1996, the AAP requested that the agency regulate aftermarket 
belt positioning devices under FMVSS No. 213. The AAP stated that 
because such devices are generally marketed as child occupant 
protection devices, the products should be subject to the same testing 
and certification to which child restraints are subject. The AAP was 
concerned that some belt positioning devices ``appear to interfere with 
proper lap and shoulder harness fit by positioning the lap belt too 
high across the abdomen, the shoulder harness too low across the 
shoulder, and by allowing too much slack in the shoulder harness.''
    On August 13, 1999, the agency granted the petition and published 
an NPRM that proposed to regulate belt positioning devices by way of a 
consumer information regulation (64 FR 44164). The NPRM proposed to 
require labeling of belt positioning devices with a statement warning 
against use of the device by children under the age of 6 (alternative, 
or additionally, under the height of 47.5 inches (1206 mm)).
    In 1994, the agency released a report regarding tests that the 
agency had conducted on three belt positioning devices that were then 
on the market.\25\ The agency dynamically tested the belt positioning 
devices under the conditions then specified for testing child 
restraints under FMVSS No. 213. Hybrid II 3-year-old and 6-year-old 
dummies were used (which, in 1994, were the state-of-the-art dummies 
used to test child restraints), and a Hybrid III 5th percentile female 
adult dummy. Dummies were restrained in lap/shoulder belts with, and 
without the devices. A comparison of the test results revealed that in 
many of the tests with the 3-year-old dummy, the belt positioning 
devices reduced belt performance and contributed toward high HIC 
measurements (HIC values greater than 1000). In one case, the measured 
chest acceleration exceeded the FMVSS No. 213 limit of 60 g's. The 
devices generally performed adequately with the 6-year-old dummy with 
respect to HIC, i.e., the performance criteria of FMVSS No. 213 were 
not exceeded. However, one device resulted in chest g measurements that 
exceeded the FMVSS No. 213 limit in both frontal and offset sled tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Evaluation of Devices to Improve Shoulder Belt Fit,'' DOT 
HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers, August 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the results of the study, there was no evidence of 
a real-world problem. Only one case has been identified in which a 
child using a belt positioning device suffered injuries from the lap/
shoulder belt.\26\ Additionally, we were concerned that the proposed 
label might encourage parents to rely on a belt positioning device as 
opposed to a booster seat. Required labels could lead parents to 
believe that belt positioning devices are certified to the same 
performance criteria as child restraint systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ``Performance and Use of Child Restraint Systems, 
Seatbelts, and Air Bags for Children in Passenger Vehicles, Volume 
1,'' National Transportation Safety Board (1996). (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/SS9601.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of real-world data and given the concerns of 
improper restraint choice, we terminated the rulemaking regarding belt 
positioning devices (69 FR 13503; March 23, 2004; Docket No. NHTSA-99-
5100). However, while we are not pursuing rulemaking, we have initiated 
a testing program to allow us to use the most advanced test procedures 
and equipment to gain up-to-date research on current belt positioning 
devices. We are particularly interested in the potential use of the 
HIII-10C test dummy in evaluating forces that such devices could 
redirect to a child's abdominal and lumbar areas in a crash. The 
anterior superior iliac spine load cell attachment locations on the 
test dummy provide an opportunity to evaluate belt loading of the 
abdomen. Further, because the HIII-10C can be positioned in a slouched 
or upright posture, the dummy can be used to assess performance of the 
belts and belt positioning devices with slouching children. We believe 
that the research program will provide useful data that will enhance 
our ability to determine what regulatory approach, if any, would be 
most appropriate to address belt positioning devices.
    For these reasons, the agency has decided not to regulate belt 
positioning devices under FMVSS No. 213 in this NPRM.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.213 would be amended by revising the definition of 
Child restraint system in S4, and revising S6.1.1(d)(2), S6.2.3, 
S7.1.2(e), S9.1(f), S9.3.2 introductory text, and S10.2.2 and adding 
S7.1.2(f), to read as follows:


Sec.  571.213  Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Child restraint system means any device, except Type I or Type II 
seat belts, designed for use in a motor

[[Page 51732]]

vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 
36 kilograms (kg) or less.
* * * * *
    S6.1.1 Test conditions.
* * * * *
    (d)(1) * * *
    (2) When using the test dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572, 
subparts N, P, R, or T, performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at 
any ambient temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any 
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
* * * * *
    S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the dummy restrained in the child 
restraint system and apply the following force: 50 N for a system 
tested with a newborn dummy; 90 N for a system tested with a 9-month-
old dummy; 90 N for a system tested with a 12-month-old dummy; 200 N 
for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy; 270 N for a system tested 
with a 6-year-old dummy; 350 N for a system tested with a weighted 6-
year-old dummy; or 437 N for a system tested with a 10-year-old-dummy. 
The force is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 and as 
follows:
    (a) Add-on Child Restraints. For an add-on child restraint other 
than a car bed, apply the specified force by pulling the sling 
horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the standard seat assembly. 
For a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling vertically.
    (b) Built-in Child Restraints. For a built-in child restraint other 
than a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling parallel to the 
longitudinal centerline of the specific vehicle shell or the specific 
vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling 
vertically.
    S7.1.2 * * *
* * * * *
    (e) A child restraint that is manufactured on or after August 1, 
2005 and before (two years after publication of a final rule; for 
illustration purposes, August 1, 2007), and that is recommended by its 
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a 
specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater 
than 22.7 kg or by children in a specified height range that includes 
any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm is tested with a 49 
CFR part 572, subpart S dummy.
    (f) A child restraint that is manufactured after August 1, 2007, 
and that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for 
use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any 
children having a mass greater than 22.7 kg or by children in a 
specified height range that includes any children whose height is 
greater than 1100 mm is tested with a 10-year-old child dummy 
conforming to the applicable specifications in 49 CFR part 572, subpart 
T.
* * * * *
    S9.1 Type of clothing.
* * * * *
    (f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N), 
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart S), and 
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart T). When used in 
testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, 
subpart N, weighted and unweighted, is clothed in a light-weight cotton 
stretch short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee pants, and size 12\1/2\ M 
sneakers with rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and cotton or nylon and 
a total mass of 0.453 kg.
* * * * *
    S9.3.2 When using the test dummies conforming to Part 572 Subparts 
N, P, R, S, or T (10-year-old dummy), prepare the dummies as specified 
in this paragraph. Before being used in testing under this standard, 
dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature from 20.6 [deg]C 
to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 
percent, for at least 4 hours.
* * * * *
    S10.2.2 Three-year-old, six-year-old test and ten-year-old test 
dummy. Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child 
positioning that the restraint manufacturer provided with the system in 
accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:
* * * * *

    Issued: August 24, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-17218 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P