[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32855-32862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8727]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24980]
RIN 2127-AI66


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes breaking strength requirements for 
child restraint webbing. Under today's final rule, new webbing that 
attaches a restraint to a vehicle is required to have a minimum 
breaking strength of 15,000 N. New restraint webbing used to restrain a 
child in a restraint is required to have a minimum breaking strength of 
11,000 N. Today's final rule maintains the percent-of-strength 
requirements for webbing after it is exposed to specific environmental 
conditions that have been required under the child restraint system 
standard. Today's final rule also clarifies the weights used in the 
webbing abrasion test procedure. The requirements of this final rule 
increase the likelihood that the webbing of child restraint systems 
will sufficiently perform throughout the life of a child restraint.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule (i.e., the date that the 
rule amends the Code of Federal Regulations) is August 7, 2006. The 
compliance date of this rule is September 1, 2007 (all child restraints 
manufactured on or after this date must meet the requirements of this 
final rule).
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than July 
24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Petitions must be submitted to: Administrator, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Mr. Tewabe Asebe, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-2365) (Fax: 
202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Chris Calamita, 
Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). 
You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Strength Requirements
    a. Background and the NPRM
    b. Summary of Public Comments
    c. Response to the Comments
    1. What should be the minimum strength requirements for new 
webbing?
    i. Are the proposed limits too low?
    ii. Are the proposed limits too high?
    2. Need to retain percent-of-strength requirement for exposed 
webbing
    3. Artifacts of component testing of webbing
    d. Conclusions
II. Weight Used to Abrade
III. Compliance Date
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Strength Requirements

a. Background and the NPRM

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child 
restraint systems, regulates child restraint systems used in motor 
vehicles and aircraft (49 CFR 571.213). Among other things, this 
standard specifies requirements for the webbing material used in child 
restraint systems, including requirements for the strength of the 
webbing after the webbing is subjected to abrasion (S5.4.1(a)), light 
exposure (S5.4.1(b)), and micro-organisms (S5.4.1(b)).\1\ These 
specified conditions simulate the conditions that webbing will likely 
encounter through normal use. Evaluating the performance of the webbing 
after subjecting the webbing to those conditions better ensures the 
long-term integrity of the webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ S5.4.1(a) and (b) reference FMVSS No. 209, 49 CFR 571.209, 
Seat belt assemblies, which specifies requirements and the 
associated test procedures for seat belt assemblies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the requirements for exposed webbing is expressed in the 
form of a percent-of-strength of the webbing measured before exposure. 
S5.4.1(a) specifies that, after being subjected to abrasion as 
specified in certain sections of FMVSS No. 209, the webbing must have a 
breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the 
unabraded webbing. S5.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 213, referring to S4.2(e) in 
FMVSS No. 209, specifies that after being exposed to light, the webbing 
shall have a breaking strength of not less than 60 percent of the 
strength before exposure. The same section of FMVSS No. 213 also refers 
to S4.2(f) of FMVSS No. 209, which specifies that after being exposed 
to micro-organisms, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of not 
less than 85 percent of the strength before exposure to micro-
organisms.
    However, FMVSS No. 213 does not currently specify a minimum 
breaking strength for new webbing against which the percentages would 
be measured. Addressing this aspect of the standard,

[[Page 32856]]

on June 30, 2005, we published the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM)(70 FR 37731; Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21243) preceding this final 
rule. In the NPRM, we expressed concern that because there is no 
specified minimum breaking strength for new webbing, manufacturers 
could use webbing of inferior strength to meet the standard's 
requirements. The exposed webbing might have a breaking strength that 
is within the specified percentage of the strength of the new webbing, 
but the webbing might not have an absolute strength high enough to 
provide a margin of safety for use throughout the life of a child 
restraint.
    The NPRM sought to achieve three goals (70 FR at 37732). First was 
to specify a minimum breaking strength for unabraded webbing or webbing 
that has not been exposed to light or micro-organisms (hereinafter 
referred to as ``new webbing''), to address the concern about a lack of 
a minimum breaking strength requirement for new webbing. Second was to 
affirm that a purpose of S5.4.1(a) and (b) of FMVSS No. 213 was to 
limit the degradation rate of the webbing. We stated that limiting 
degradation was done by having a minimum breaking strength requirement 
that applies to webbing that has been exposed to mechanical or 
environmental conditions in the test laboratory that accelerate the 
aging of the webbing. (Webbing that has been abraded or exposed to the 
accelerated conditions is referred to as ``exposed webbing.'') We 
tentatively concluded that specifying minimum breaking strength 
requirements for new and exposed webbing would eliminate the need for 
the current percent-of-strength degradation requirements. Third was to 
clarify the weight used in the abrasion test to abrade the webbing used 
to attach child restraint systems to the child restraint anchorages 
located in a vehicle.
    Table 1, below, summarizes the NPRM's proposed minimum breaking 
strength requirements for new and exposed webbing: (a) Used to attach 
the child restraint system to the vehicle (hereinafter ``tether 
webbing'') \2\, and (b) used to restrain the child in the child 
restraint (hereinafter ``harness webbing''). We proposed a more 
stringent requirement for tether webbing because tether webbing secures 
the mass of a child restraint and child, whereas harness webbing is 
limited to securing the mass of a child occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As used in this preamble, the term ``tether webbing'' 
includes webbing used to attach a child restraint to all three 
anchorages of a LATCH system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency explained in the NPRM (70 FR at 37734) that the 15,000 N 
value for new tether webbing was based on a calculation of the loads 
imposed by the mass of a child and child restraint together, and on a 
consideration of the breaking strength previously required for seat 
belt assembly restraints for persons not weighing more than 50 pounds 
(Type 3 seat belt assemblies) \3\ (70 FR at 37734). Type 3 webbing was 
required to meet a breaking strength in the range of approximately 
13,000-18,000 N, depending on the number of webbing connections to 
attachment hardware. The agency believed that a 15,000 N requirement 
has a margin of safety above the minimum 13,000 N lower limit 
previously established for Type 3 webbing. We also noted that of 20 
child restraint systems tested, 17 had tether webbing with a breaking 
strength of 15,000 N or greater, indicating that a 15,000 N requirement 
would be feasible. We further stated that we are unaware of real-world 
data that would indicate the presence of a safety problem associated 
with the strength levels of current webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As explained in the NPRM (70 FR 37732), prior to 1979 FMVSS 
No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, had requirements for Type 3 seat 
belts. In December 1979, the Type 3 requirements were removed from 
FMVSS No. 209 and incorporated into an updated FMVSS No. 213 (44 FR 
72131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed a minimum breaking strength of 11,000 N for new 
harness webbing. The 11,000 N proposal was based in part on the 
breaking strength requirements for Type 3 belt assemblies prior to 
1979, which ranged from 1,500 pounds (6,670 N) for webbing in pelvic 
and upper torso restrains to 4,000 pounds ( 17,793 N) for webbing in 
seat back retainers. The proposal was also based on a consideration of 
compliance data for 109 child restraint systems collected from 2000-
2002. Ninety-two percent (100 out of 109) of the harness webbing had a 
breaking strength above 11,000 N. Given also that there have been no 
real-world reports of harness webbing failures, the agency tentatively 
determined that the proposed requirement was reasonable.
    The NPRM proposed to require tether and harness webbing to meet 
minimum strength requirements after abrasion, exposure to light, and 
exposure to micro-organisms, the same test conditions to which child 
restraint webbing is currently exposed. Currently in FMVSS No. 213, 
each of the post-exposure strength requirements is calculated from 
percentages of the strength of the original (new) webbing. The NPRM 
proposed not changing the percentages now used to calculate the post-
exposure strength requirements (75 percent--abrasion, 60 percent--
exposure to light, and 85 percent--exposure to micro-organisms). The 
proposed minimum strength requirements for the exposed webbing were 
calculated using those percentages, which were determined by the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and incorporated into SAE 
Standard SAE J4c, Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Assemblies. The agency 
incorporated the SAE percentages and procedures into FMVSS No. 209 and 
FMVSS No. 213.

            Table 1.--Proposed Breaking Strength Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Proposed breaking
       Type of webbing          Type of exposure    strength requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New tether webbing..........  ....................  15,000 N.
Exposed tether webbing......  Abrasion............  11,200 N.
                              Exposure to light...  9,000 N.
                              Exposure to micro-    12,700 N.
                               organisms.
New harness webbing.........  ....................  11,000 N.
Exposed harness webbing.....  Abrasion............  8,200 N.
                              Exposure to light...  6,600 N.
                              Exposure to micro-    9,300 N.
                               organisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 32857]]

b. Summary of Public Comments

    In response to the NPRM, the agency received comments from 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), a consumer group, 
and Britax Child Safety, Inc. (Britax), a child restraint manufacturer. 
Both commenters generally supported the establishment of minimum 
breaking strength requirements for child restraint system webbing, but 
Advocates believed that a 15,000 N requirement for new tether webbing 
may be too low, while Britax questioned whether a 15,000 N requirement 
was too high.\4\ The comments generally centered on: (a) What the 
strength requirements should be; and (b) artifacts of component testing 
of webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ No commenter directly addressed the proposal for a 11,000 N 
strength requirement for new harness webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Response to the Comments

1. What should be the minimum strength requirements for new webbing?
    The NPRM proposed that the minimum breaking strength should be 
15,000 N for new tether webbing and 11,000 N for new harness webbing.
i. Are the proposed limits too low?
    A. In its comments to the NPRM, Advocates supported establishing 
specific strength requirements, but questioned whether a 15,000 N 
requirement would be sufficient. Advocates suggested that the agency 
consider the breaking strength requirements of FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat 
belt assemblies,'' because the tether webbing attaches child restraints 
to a vehicle and takes the place of the vehicle's belts in fulfilling 
this function. Advocates recommended that the minimum breaking strength 
for new tether webbing should be 22,241 N, the breaking strength 
requirement for the lap belt portion of a lap/shoulder seat belt (Type 
2 seat belt) under FMVSS No. 209.
    Response: The agency believes that a 15,000 N requirement is 
sufficient. The requirement is based on an analysis of the force 
generated by a 50 pound (lb) child that is secured in a 15-lb child 
restraint system (the average weight of a toddler restraint) in a 48 
kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per hour (mph)) crash. As explained 
in the NPRM, the resulting dynamic force from such a crash is less than 
15,000 N. There are child restraints for children weighing more than 50 
lb, but those restraints are typically booster seats which do not use 
webbing to attach the child restraint to the vehicle.
    We disagree that there is a safety need to adopt FMVSS No. 209 
webbing strength requirements. FMVSS No. 209 establishes requirements 
for vehicle seat belts to ensure that seat belt assemblies are suitable 
for restraining occupants as large as a 95th percentile male (223 lb). 
Child restraint system webbing does not need to be as strong, since the 
loads generated in that application are much less.
    B. Advocates stated in its arguments that the minimum breaking 
strengths for exposed webbing should at least be comparable to the 
LATCH \5\ anchorage strength requirements. Advocates stated that such a 
requirement would ensure that the webbing provided adequate strength 
for the life of a child restraint, and that the webbing would not be a 
``weak link'' in the LATCH system, i.e., webbing would not fail at 
force levels lower than those that would result in a failure of the 
LATCH anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for 
Children,'' a term that was developed by manufacturers and retailers 
to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system 
required by FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.'' 
This preamble uses the term to describe either an FMVSS No. 225 
anchorage system in a vehicle or a child restraint that attaches to 
an FMVSS No. 225 child restraint anchorage system. Child restraints 
have been required by FMVSS No. 213 to have components enabling 
attachment to the lower anchors of a vehicle's LATCH system since 
September 1, 2002. Child restraints have had top tethers that attach 
to the tether anchor of a LATCH system since 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The strength requirements established today are component 
requirements. Each webbing component must meet the requirement. The 
strength requirements for LATCH anchorages under FMVSS No. 225 apply to 
the anchorages when the system is tested, i.e. the anchorages must be 
able to endure a 15,000 N force applied to all three anchorages 
simultaneously, and a separate 11,000 N force applied to just the lower 
anchorages simultaneously. The minimum strength requirements for 
exposed webbing as tested on the component level are comparable to or 
more than the loads generated on the anchorages as a system in the 
test, ensuring an adequate margin of safety over the life time of a 
restraint while keeping the requirements within reason.
    C. Advocates also suggested that webbing that secures a child 
restraint to the lower LATCH anchorage points should have a more 
stringent strength requirement than that for tether webbing which 
secures a child restraint to the upper LATCH anchorage. Advocates 
stated that the webbing associated with the lower anchorages will 
``bear the brunt of the forces exerted on the child restraint in the 
event of a crash.''
    Response: S9.4 of FMVSS No. 225 requires that the lower anchorages 
withstand an 11,000 N force applied to both anchorages simultaneously. 
Today's final rule requires that the webbing have a minimum breaking 
strength of 15,000 N at the component level. Child restraint systems 
typically are secured to the LATCH attachments with more than one piece 
of webbing. The combined strength of the webbing attaching the child 
restraint to the lower LATCH anchors is sufficiently strong, provides 
an adequate margin of safety, and does not need to be increased.
    D. In setting the proposed strength requirements for new webbing, 
NHTSA evaluated compliance data from the FMVSS No. 213 compliance 
program in 2000-2002. We determined that a certain portion of the 
tested webbing would pass a higher limit (17,000 N), and a certain 
portion would pass a lower limit (13,000 N) (70 FR at 37734). Advocates 
stated that the agency ``should not be seeking to `grandfather' a 
majority of current products. * * *''
    Response: The agency's evaluation of compliance data was to 
demonstrate that the proposed requirements, and ultimately those 
adopted today, are feasible to achieve. Additionally, as stated in the 
NPRM, the agency wanted to point out that current webbing meeting a 
15,000 N requirement has not been breaking in normal use. Advocates 
commented that this lack of data may be a result of the LATCH 
requirements being relatively new. The LATCH top tether anchorage has 
been used in the United States since 1999. Moreover, tethers have been 
used in Canada, which has comparable strength requirements to those 
adopted today, since the 1970's without an indication of an issue with 
webbing strength. Thus, for the reasons explained in the NPRM, we 
conclude that a 15,000 N strength requirement for new tether webbing 
meets the need for safety, improves the enforceability of the standard, 
and is practicable.
ii. Are the proposed limits too high?
    A. Noting that the NPRM had discussed NHTSA's compliance test of a 
Britax tether webbing specimen that had an unabraded breaking strength 
of only 5,385 N, Britax stated that it has seen no real-world 
experiences related to webbing failures. Britax believed that the 
proposed webbing strength values are more stringent than necessary, and 
that overly stringent requirements for tether webbing may result in an 
increase in recorded injury criteria. Britax stated that excessive 
webbing strength may negatively affect other characteristics of webbing 
material such as elongation,

[[Page 32858]]

and suggested that further evaluation by NHTSA and the industry is 
needed to determine the affect the proposed webbing strength 
requirements will have on dynamic performance.
    Response: The lack of a minimum breaking strength requirement for 
new webbing prompted the agency to undertake this rulemaking. NHTSA was 
concerned that where there is no specified minimum breaking strength 
for new webbing, manufacturers could use webbing of inferior strength 
to meet the standard's requirements. Without a specified initial 
breaking strength requirement, the percentage-of-strength requirement 
alone did not provide an effective floor for acceptable performance. 
The exposed webbing might have a breaking strength that is within the 
specified percentage of the strength of the new webbing, but the 
webbing might not have an absolute strength high enough to provide a 
margin of safety for use throughout the life of a child restraint (70 
FR at 37732). The agency also determined that a minimum strength 
requirement should be based on an analysis of the forces likely to be 
imposed on the webbing. Our calculation of those forces led us to 
determine that a 15,000 N requirement would be high enough to withstand 
such forces, and would be high enough such that exposed webbing could 
degrade in strength yet would maintain sufficient strength to perform 
as needed for as long as the restraint is used.
    Related to its comment that its 5,385 N webbing is satisfactory, 
Britax stated that its webbing maintained in some cases up to 100 
percent of the original webbing strength. Britax believed that the 
webbing maintains an acceptable strength following the specified 
testing and meets the agency's intent of the rulemaking. (Britax 
states, and we concur, that our intent ``is to ensure that the webbing 
strength will as satisfactorily protect the life of the occupant at the 
end of the product life, as it did in the beginning.'') The agency 
concurs that keeping the current requirement that exposed webbing must 
retain a specified percentage of the original strength of the webbing 
is preferable to the approach proposed in the NPRM. This point is 
discussed in the next section. However, for the reasons given above, 
the agency believes that there should also be a component in FMVSS No. 
213 that specifies the minimum strength of the new webbing. The 15,000 
N and 11,000 N breaking strength requirements for new tether and 
harness webbing, respectively, serve a safety need and are reasonable.
    Further, Britax did not provide any data to show that the minimum 
breaking strength adopted today is ``excessive.'' The compliance data 
relied upon by the agency in the NPRM demonstrated that current child 
restraint systems are equipped with webbing that exceeds the minimum 
requirements adopted today \6\ while being compliant with all of the 
injury criteria requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The mean breaking strength for new tether webbing was over 
17,000 N (NHTSA Docket No. 2005-21243-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Advocates also raised a concern related to elongation of the 
webbing. The commenter recommended that the agency establish a 
requirement for the elongation characteristics of webbing, stating that 
elongation leads to fatigued material strength and can dramatically 
reduce webbing tensile strength during sudden dynamic loading.
    Response: An elongation requirement would be outside of the scope 
of the NPRM. Moreover, the agency disagrees that there is a 
demonstrated need to establish elongation requirements for webbing at 
the component level. The effect of webbing elongation is already 
addressed in the excursion limit requirements in the dynamic testing 
specified in FMVSS No. 213. S5.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213 limits the amount 
of excursion that can be experienced by a test dummy's head and knees 
during a 48 km/h (30 mile per hour) crash test. As such, the 
requirements for child restraint systems, when tested dynamically, 
place practical limits on the elongation characteristics of webbing. 
Advocates did not provide any data to indicate that the elongation 
limitation inherent to the dynamic requirements of FMVSS No. 213 is 
insufficient.
2. Need to retain percent-of-strength requirement for exposed webbing
    The NPRM proposed to establish minimum breaking strength 
requirements for exposed webbing. The minimum breaking strength 
requirements were calculated from the proposed strength requirements 
for new webbing, using the existing percent-of-strength requirements in 
the current rule. We proposed that abraded tether webbing would be 
required to have a minimum breaking strength of 11,200 N (which is 75 
percent of 15,000 N), tether webbing exposed to the light degradation 
procedure would be required to have a breaking strength of 9,000 N (60 
percent of 15,000 N), and tether webbing exposed to the micro-organism 
test procedure would be required to have a minimum breaking strength of 
12,700 N (85 percent of 15,000 N). Comparable limits were proposed for 
exposed harness webbing.
    A. Britax suggested that ``As the agency only tests new child 
restraint systems, with the proposed webbing breaking strength there is 
a wider window of degradability that may create an adverse condition in 
the field not detectable by the agency.'' Britax stated that ``the 
wider the window of degradability, the increase on the risk of adverse 
affect [sic] on child safety. * * * The proposed rule potentially 
permits a greater percentage of degradation.'' Britax suggested that 
the minimum strength requirements for exposed webbing ``must reflect 
the degradation percentages.'' As stated by Britax:

    Under the proposed requirement, the minimum breaking strength of 
unabraded tether webbing is 15,000 N, 75% of which is 11,200 N--the 
minimum breaking strength of abraded tether webbing. As the proposed 
rule is written, the `minimum' requirement allows the manufacturer 
to provide webbing with a higher breaking strength. Notwithstanding 
the potential result the higher breaking strength may have on the 
overall performance of the child restraint, the abraded webbing 
strength may be as low as 11,200 N, potential[ly] more than the 25% 
reduction in breaking strength now permitted under 49 CFR Sec.  
571.213 and 209.

    Response: After considering Britax's comment, we conclude that the 
NPRM did not sufficiently limit the degradation rate of webbing 
material and thus did not adequately fulfill the second of the agency's 
goals for the rulemaking. The agency agrees with the commenter that 
exposed webbing should be required to maintain a minimum percentage of 
its strength as new webbing, as a means of limiting the degradation 
rate of the webbing. The rate of degradation is preferable to 
specifying an absolute minimum strength for exposed webbing because 
limiting a rate of degradation insures proper webbing material 
selection. An excessive degradation rate (e.g., over 25% when subjected 
to the abrasion test) indicates a problem with the quality and/or 
durability of the selected material. Our review of general engineering 
literature indicates that specifying strength requirements by limiting 
degradation rates is standard industry practice for proper material 
selection.
    The degradation rate will not be limited by having only a minimum 
breaking strength applying to new and exposed webbing. We believe that 
Britax is correct that the approach of the NPRM created a potential 
loophole whereby webbing that degraded in the laboratory tests more 
than 25 percent

[[Page 32859]]

when abraded, 40 percent when exposed to light, or 15 percent when 
exposed to micro-organisms could be used in the manufacture of child 
restraints. We want to prevent the use of such webbing because it may 
not last as long as necessary to protect children using the restraint 
(including for second-hand restraint use).
    The laboratory tests are accelerated aging tests which provide a 
snapshot of the webbing over prolonged exposure to environmental 
conditions. The tests are not intended to and do not assess how strong 
a particular tested specimen will be at the end of its life. The tests 
do not replicate the lifetime use of the webbing.\7\ If a child 
restraint webbing sample lost more than 25 percent of its strength when 
abraded in the test, the webbing will have abraded so much during that 
snapshot assessment that we question its ability to last the lifetime 
of the restraint,\8\ especially when exposed year after year to the 
cumulative effects of light, micro-organisms and other conditions. 
Thus, today's final rule maintains the current percent-of-strength 
requirements for exposed webbing. Exposed tether webbing must maintain 
75 percent, 60 percent, and 85 percent of the new webbing strength when 
exposed to abrasion testing, light degradation testing, and micro-
organism degradation testing, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``The primary purposes of laboratory tests are merely to 
save valuable time and to serve as controls in the manufacture of 
basic materials.'' Plastics Engineering Handbook of the Society of 
the Plastics Industry, Inc., Third Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold 
Company, 1960.
    \8\ The same concerns apply to webbing that lost more than 40% 
or 15% of its strength after exposure to light and micro-organisms, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA emphasizes that as a result of retaining the percent-of-
strength breaking strength requirements for exposed webbing, if new 
webbing has a breaking strength higher than the minimum required 
(15,000 N for new tether webbing or 11,000 N for new harness webbing), 
the exposed webbing breaking strengths must be higher than the minimum 
values listed for exposed webbing in proposed Table 1 of the NPRM (for 
the convenience of the reader, that table was set forth in this 
preamble, supra). Exceeding the degradation rates of the standard 
indicates a quality problem with the webbing material selection and 
raises concern that the webbing may not satisfactorily perform at the 
end of its product life as it did at the beginning, even if the exposed 
webbing has a breaking strength that is higher in magnitude than a 
competitor's webbing that met the percent-of-strength requirement.
    B. The agency proposed specific minimum strength requirements for 
exposed harness webbing that were based on the percent-of-strength 
requirements of the current standard; i.e., 8,200 N (75 percent of 
11,000 N) for abraded harness webbing, 6,600 N (60 percent of 11,000 N) 
for harness webbing exposed to light degradation, and 9,300 N (85 
percent of 11,000 N) for harness webbing exposed to micro-organism 
degradation.
    Today's final rule does not establish absolute minimum strength 
values for exposed harness webbing, but instead retains the percent-of-
strength requirements of the current regulation. Again, as the webbing 
requirements apply at a component level, the minimums established today 
ensure that child restraint webbing will perform adequately and will 
continue to do so as it ages.
3. Artifacts of component testing of webbing
    A. The webbing requirements adopted today apply to webbing at the 
component level, i.e., child restraint webbing must comply with the 
requirements when tested independently from the child restraint system. 
Britax wanted the agency to consider child restraint requirements in 
terms of the interaction of the restraint with a vehicle on a system 
level. The commenter was concerned that establishing minimum breaking 
strength requirements for multiple child restraint components would 
hinder a manufacturer's ability to ``optimize'' a design to maximize 
safety.
    Response: Today's requirements apply to the component level to the 
same extent as currently required under the standard. The component 
requirements enable the agency to conduct accelerated aging tests. The 
breaking strength requirements ensure that the performance of webbing 
over the lifetime of a child restraint system is sufficient to provide 
the necessary protection. Requirements that apply to new child 
restraints only, such as the dynamic sled test conducted on the child 
restraint as a system, do not provide comparable assurances, 
particularly for components such as webbing that are likely to 
experience extraordinary ``wear and tear'' and exposure to elements 
that can degrade the webbing strength in the course of normal use.
    B. With regard to the specific percent-of-strength requirements, 
Advocates asked why different exposure paths have different percent 
requirements.
    Response: As explained in the NPRM, the percent-of-strength values 
and the corresponding test procedures were determined by the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) and incorporated into SAE standard SAE J4c, 
Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Assemblies. The agency incorporated the SAE 
percentages and procedures into FMVSS Nos. 209 and 213.
    The differences in percentage degradation levels for abrasion, 
exposure to light, and exposure to micro-organisms are due to 
differences in the accelerated laboratory test procedures used to 
predict long-term exposure. That is, the degradation percentage 
requirements are dependant on the procedures for the individual tests. 
For example, the resistance-to-abrasion test specifies a 2,500 cycle 
procedure at a specific weight and cycle rate. The resistance-to-light 
test specifies 100 hours of exposure to carbon-arc light. The 
variations in the types of environmental tests the webbing is exposed 
to are reflected in the differences in the percent degradation 
requirements.

d. Conclusions

    Today's final rule adopts the proposed minimum breaking strength 
requirements for new webbing, but does not adopt the proposal to 
specify minimum breaking strength requirements for exposed webbing. 
Instead, the final rule retains, for exposed webbing, the current 
percent-of-strength requirements. Under today's final rule, new tether 
webbing must have a minimum breaking strength of 15,000 N, and new 
harness webbing must have a minimum breaking strength of 11,000 N. For 
exposed webbing, rather than adopting specific strength requirements 
for the webbing, we are retaining the current percent-of-strength 
requirement. That is, exposed webbing, whether it is tether webbing or 
harness webbing, must maintain 75 percent, 60 percent, and 85 percent 
of the new webbing strength when exposed to abrasion testing, light 
degradation testing, and micro-organism degradation testing, 
respectively.
    The requirements adopted today increase the likelihood that the 
webbing material of child restraints maintains its integrity for the 
lifetime of the restraint. The degradation rate of the webbing, as 
measured in the ``snapshot'' of the performance of the webbing obtained 
in the accelerated aging tests, indicates the quality of the material 
in withstanding long-term exposure. The ability of the webbing to 
maintain its integrity is especially important now that child 
restraints are required by FMVSS No. 213 to have components that attach 
to the LATCH system on vehicles. Child

[[Page 32860]]

restraint manufacturers have predominately chosen to connect these 
components to the child restraint by use of webbing material. Requiring 
the webbing material to meet a minimum strength requirement when new, 
and not exceed a specified rate of degradation when exposed to 
environmental conditions, will better ensure that child restraints will 
be able to be securely attached to the vehicle in a crash, even when 
the restraint is passed down to second-hand users.

II. Weight Used to Abrade

    S5.4.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 requires that child restraint belt 
webbing must meet breaking strength requirements after being abraded 
pursuant to a procedure specified in S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209. 
S5.1(d)'s abrasion procedure requires that belt webbing be drawn across 
two edges of a hexagonal steel bar by an oscillating drum, with one end 
of the webbing sample attached to the drum and the other attached to a 
weight with a specified mass. Two different weights are specified:

    One end of the webbing (A) shall be attached to a mass (B) of 
2.35 [kilogram (kg)]  .05 kg, except that a mass of 1.5 
kg  .05 kg shall be used for webbing in pelvic and upper 
torso restraints of a belt assembly used in a child restraint 
system.

    A tether strap used to attach a child restraint to the vehicle is 
neither a pelvic nor upper torso restraint, and therefore does not fall 
within the exclusion allowing for use of the 1.5 kg mass. Thus, the 
2.35 kg mass should be used to abrade tether webbing. To make the 
wording clearer, the NPRM proposed to amend S5.4.1 by adding a 
reference to the 2.35 kg mass as the mass used in the abrasion test to 
abrade webbing used to attach a child restraint to a vehicle's LATCH 
system (tether webbing). The agency wanted to clarify the language 
because it believed it was important that the 2.35 kg mass be used to 
abrade this webbing. The heavier weight should be used because 
installation and removal of the child seat exposes the webbing to 
greater potential for abrasion, and because the webbing used for the 
LATCH attachments must restrain the mass of both the child and the 
child restraint system.
    No comments were received on this issue and the agency reiterates 
that the heavier mass should be used in the test of tether straps 
(i.e., any strap used to attach the child restraint to LATCH 
anchorages). However, as we were reviewing the proposed S5.4.1 
regulatory text, we determined that the proposed language was in need 
of correction, as it was not equivalent to nor did it entirely clarify 
the language of S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209. We concluded that it was 
unnecessary to limit the text specifically to webbing used to secure a 
child restraint system to the LATCH anchorages, and that doing so could 
give rise to questions of interpretation about which weight to use for 
webbing that was neither used in pelvic and upper torso restraints of a 
child restraint belt assembly nor used to attach the restraint to a 
LATCH system. Accordingly, this final rule generally uses the language 
of S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209 in clarifying FMVSS No. 213 regarding the 
mass used to test the webbing of child restraints, but specifies that 
the heavier mass (2.35 kg) must be used for webbing including but not 
limited to webbing used to secure child restraint systems to LATCH 
anchorages and that the lighter mass (1.5 kg) shall be used for webbing 
in pelvic and upper torso restraints of a belt assembly used in a child 
restraint system.

III. Compliance Date

    The compliance date of this rule is September 1, 2007 (all child 
restraints manufactured on or after this date must meet the 
requirements of this final rule). A majority of the child restraint 
systems surveyed for the NPRM would comply with the requirements 
adopted today. However, the agency is aware that manufacturers may 
purchase webbing for production of a child restraint model in advance 
of production. Today's final rule provides manufacturers with over a 
year of lead time, which should minimize the need for manufacturers to 
replace existing stock and will provide adequate time for manufacturers 
to secure compliant webbing for future production.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The rulemaking action is also not considered to 
be significant under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    The agency concludes that this rulemaking action will not have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million. The agency is 
establishing minimum breaking strength requirements for webbing used in 
child restraint systems. The agency estimates that most child restraint 
systems meet these requirements. NHTSA estimates that the cost of 
webbing material that meets the requirements adopted today is only 
about $.10 per foot. Thus, the impacts of this rulemaking are so minor 
so as not to warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), the agency must determine the impact of its proposal 
or final rule on small businesses. The Small Business Administration's 
regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a 
business entity ``which operates primarily within the United States.'' 
(13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if 
the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The rational for this certification is that most child restraint 
systems meet the requirements. For manufacturers producing child 
restraints that do not meet the minimum strength requirements, it will 
not be difficult for these manufacturers to obtain and use complying 
webbing on their child restraints. Further, the agency is providing 
more than a year for manufacturers that do not comply to obtain and 
incorporate compliant webbing.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this rule will not have any significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that the 
rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant 
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
federalism summary

[[Page 32861]]

impact statement. The rule will not have any substantial effects on the 
States, the current Federal-State relationship, or the current 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local 
officials.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not 
require any collections of information as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR 
Part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards 
in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical (Pub. L. 104-113, codified at 
15 U.S.C. 272). Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE). The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through the OMB, 
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's final rule continues to rely on SAE J4c with regard to the 
exposed webbing requirements. There are no other relevant voluntary 
consensus standards available at this time. However, the agency will 
consider any such standards when they become available.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with a base 
year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the gross domestic product 
price deflator for the year 2004 results in about $118 million (115.5 / 
98.11 x $100 million).
    The agency has concluded that this rule will not result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of more than $118 million annually. 
Accordingly, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions 
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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. S5.4.1 of Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5.4.1 and 
S5.4.1.1, and by adding S5.4.1.2 and S5.4.1.3, to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S5.4.1 Performance requirements.
    S5.4.1.1 Child restraint systems manufactured before September 1, 
2007. The webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system and 
used to attach the system to the vehicle or to restrain the child 
within the system shall--
    (a) After being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or 
S5.3(c) of FMVSS 209 (Sec.  571.209), have a breaking strength of not 
less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing when 
tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS 209. A mass of 2.35  .05 kg shall be used in the test procedure in S5.1(d) of FMVSS 
209 for webbing, including webbing used to secure a child restraint 
system to the tether and lower anchorages of a child restraint 
anchorage system, except that a mass of 1.5 +/-.05 kg shall be used for 
webbing in pelvic and upper torso restraints of a belt assembly used in 
a child restraint system. The mass is shown as (B) in Figure 2 of FMVSS 
209.
    (b) Meet the requirements of S4.2 (e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 209 
(Sec.  571.209); and
    (c) If contactable by the test dummy torso when the system is 
tested in accordance with S6.1, have a width of not less than 1\1/2\ 
inches when measured in accordance with S5.4.1.3.
    S5.4.1.2 Child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 
1, 2007. The webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system 
and used to attach the system to the vehicle or to restrain the child 
within the system shall--
    (a) Have a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less 
than 15,000 N in the case of webbing used to secure a child restraint 
system to the vehicle, including the tether and lower anchorages of a 
child restraint anchorage system, and not less than 11,000 N in the 
case of the webbing used to secure a child to a child restraint system 
when tested in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209. Each value shall 
be not less than the 15,000 N and 11,000 N applicable breaking strength 
requirements, but the median value shall be used for determining the 
retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2) 
of this section S5.4.1.2. ``New webbing'' means webbing that has not 
been exposed to abrasion, light or micro-organisms as specified 
elsewhere in this section.
    (b)(1) After being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or 
S5.3(c) of FMVSS 209 (Sec.  571.209), have a breaking strength of not 
less than 75

[[Page 32862]]

percent of the new webbing strength, when tested in accordance with 
S5.1(b) of FMVSS 209.
    (2) A mass of 2.35  .05 kg shall be used in the test 
procedure in S5.1(d) of FMVSS 209 for webbing, including webbing to 
secure a child restraint system to the tether and lower anchorages of a 
child restraint anchorage system, except that a mass of 1.5  .05 kg shall be used for webbing in pelvic and upper torso 
restraints of a belt assembly used in a child restraint system. The 
mass is shown as (B) in Figure 2 of FMVSS 209.
    (c)(1) After exposure to the light of a carbon arc and tested by 
the procedure specified in S5.1(e) of FMVSS 209 (Sec.  571.209), have a 
breaking strength of not less than 60 percent of the new webbing, and 
shall have a color retention not less than No. 2 on the Geometric Gray 
Scale published by the American Association of Textile Chemists and 
Colorists, Post Office Box 886, Durham, NC.
    (2) After being subjected to micro-organisms and tested by the 
procedures specified in S5.1(f) of FMVSS 209 (Sec.  571.209), shall 
have a breaking strength not less than 85 percent of the new webbing.
    (d) If contactable by the test dummy torso when the system is 
tested in accordance with S6.1, have a width of not less than 1\1/2\ 
inches when measured in accordance with S5.4.1.3.
    S5.4.1.3 Width test procedure. Condition the webbing for 24 hours 
in an atmosphere of any relative humidity between 48 and 67 percent, 
and any ambient temperature between 70[deg] and 77 [deg]F. Measure belt 
webbing width under a tension of 5 pounds applied lengthwise.
* * * * *

    Issued: May 31, 2006.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-8727 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P