[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81836-81848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22448]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0058]
RIN 2127-AM64
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; FMVSS No. 213, ``Child
Restraint Systems,'' FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child Restraint Systems--Side
Impact Protection,'' and FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child Restraint Systems''--
Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of
the June 2022 final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213a and the December 2023 final rule establishing
FMVSS No. 213b. This final rule grants petitions to incorporate a dummy
positioning procedure for shield-type child restraint systems (CRSs),
clarify test procedure for CRSs with certain types of side impact
technologies, remove testing CRSs installed with lap belt only in
frontal sled tests, and correct inconsistencies in the regulatory text
and figures in FMVSS Nos. 213a and 213b. This final rule also partially
grants the petition to align compliance dates between the standards.
All other requests are denied.
DATES:
Effective date: November 8, 2024.
Reconsideration date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration
of this rule, your petition must be received by November 25, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your
complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further
information in
[[Page 81837]]
the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this preamble.
Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone can
search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go
to www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:
(202) 366-6345). For legal issues, you may call Matthew Filpi, Office
of Chief Counsel (telephone: (202) 366-2992). Address: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency
Response
a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With Fixed, Adjustable and
Configurable Side Impact Technologies
b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed or Movable Surface To
Restrain the Child in FMVSS No. 213a
c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting Angle Tolerance Correction
d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and Protrusion Limits in
FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b
e. Removing ``At NHTSA's Option'' Phrase in S6.1.2
f. Removing 45 Degree CRS Angle at Completion of Test
Requirement
g. Correcting Error on Table 1 to S5.1.6
h. Clarifications
III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and
Agency Response
a. Aligning Compliance Dates
b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or Changing Sunset Date
c. Unit Conversion Consistency
d. Remove Duplicative Language
e. Registration Card Guidelines
IV. Correction to Regulatory Text
V. Costs and Benefits
VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
On June 30, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule (side impact final
rule) (87 FR 39234) amending FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint
systems,'' to establish side impact performance requirements for CRSs
designed to seat children weighing up to 18.1 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds
(lbs)), or for children in a height range that includes heights up to
1100 millimeters (43.3 inches). The side impact performance
requirements were established in the new FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child
restraint systems--side impact protection,'' which is referenced by
Standard No. 213.
On December 5, 2023, NHTSA published a final rule (frontal test
upgrade final rule) (88 FR 84514) amending FMVSS No. 213 and adding
FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint systems.'' The amendments to FMVSS
No. 213 modernize the standard by updating the CRS owner registration
program, labeling requirements instructing consumers on correct use of
child restraints, requirements for add-on school bus-specific child
restraint systems, and provisions for NHTSA's use of test dummies in
NHTSA compliance tests. The establishment of FMVSS No. 213b will update
the standard seat assembly on which NHTSA tests child restraint systems
for compliance with frontal crash performance requirements.
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the side impact
final rule,\1\ from Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc. (Cybex products
distributor) and Evenflo (Goodbaby International subsidiary) Inc.
(Evenflo). NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration \2\ of the
frontal test upgrade final rule from Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA) and Evenflo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitions have been docketed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0051-0004.
\2\ Petitions have been docketed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0040-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners to the side impact final rule requested
clarifications on dummy positioning test procedures for shield-type
CRSs and on test procedures for CRSs that have adjustable and
configurable technologies for side impact. The petitioners also
requested minor corrections to the regulatory text of the adopted
standard. NHTSA is granting the petitions to incorporate a dummy
positioning procedure for shield-type CRSs, correct inconsistencies in
the side impact seat assembly mounting angle tolerances in the
regulatory text and figures, and correct inconsistent units between the
standards. NHTSA is denying the remaining requests from the two
petitioners.
The petitioners to the frontal test upgrade final rule requested
the following: (1) consolidations of the compliance dates \3\ of FMVSS
Nos. 213, 213a and 213b, (2) removal of tests with CRS installation
using Type 1 seat belt or an earlier sunset date for testing CRSs
installed with the Type 1 seat belt, (3) minor corrections to the
regulatory text of the adopted standards, and, (4) guidance on the new
requirements for the registration card. NHTSA is partially granting the
request to align the compliance dates and granting the request to
remove Type 1 seat belt testing. NHTSA is also making minor corrections
to the regulatory text identified by the petitioners. The agency is
denying the request for rulemaking to provide guidance on the new
registration card requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The compliance date is the date that the applicable products
must comply with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency Responses
a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With Fixed, Adjustable, and
Configurable Side Impact Technologies
Cybex requested NHTSA clarify how fixed, adjustable, and
configurable side impact technologies will be tested in future annual
compliance test programs. Cybex explained that previous NHTSA
interpretations have deemed ``belt tensioning bars, additional straps
and support legs'' as supplemental devices. Cybex further noted that
supplemental devices are not used during compliance testing per the
specifications in S6.1.2 of FMVSS No. 213 that no supplemental devices
be used to install CRSs.
Cybex explained that neither the dynamic test procedure nor past
interpretations Cybex reviewed provide guidance on other aspects of
adjusting or use of a child restraint beyond S6.1.2. This section of
the standard requires CRS installation in accordance with
manufacturer's instructions provided with the CRS.
Cybex asked NHTSA for clarification on (1) whether an adjustment
specified in the manufacturer's instruction is allowed to be made prior
to or after securing the CRS to the side impact seat assembly (SISA),
and (2) whether an adjustment of a technology that is part of the CRS
is allowed to be made prior to testing according to this supplemental
device requirement.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Cybex's petition to provide
informal guidance on the testing procedure
[[Page 81838]]
outlined in FMVSS No. 213a. Under 49 CFR 553.35, petitions for
reconsideration must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an
explanation why compliance with the rule is not practicable, is
unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. We do not believe that
Cybex has met its burden of explaining why the FMVSS No. 213a test
procedure is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public
interest. Instead, Cybex's petition simply requests guidance on how
NHTSA would test CRSs under FMVSS No. 213a. NHTSA does not provide
informal guidance in responses to petitions for reconsideration.
Although we will not be providing guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a's
test procedures apply to the adjustable side impact technology
discussed by Cybex, we do think this issue is worth addressing. Instead
of addressing it here in the form of guidance, we plan to initiate a
rulemaking on this issue. FMVSS No. 213a is new requirement that does
not take effect until June of 2025. Accordingly, when NHTSA published
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2014 proposing side impact
protection requirements for child restraint systems, the agency could
not predict how child restraint manufacturers would choose to comply
with the standard. Additionally, no commenters discussed this
technology during the NPRM stage. NHTSA conducted rigorous testing to
ensure that the requirements of FMVSS No. 213a were practicable, but as
is the case with many of our standards, manufacturers innovate to meet
the requirements of our standards. This is the case with the adjustable
side impact technology Cybex discusses in its petition for
reconsideration. Accordingly, the agency could not have considered how
to test with this technology since it did not exist when the
requirements were proposed and how popular these designs would become.
Because the agency has limited test experience with adjustable side
impact technology, we cannot yet speak to any safety benefits
associated with it. The agency plans to continue its research and
testing to determine if and how FMVSS No. 213a should be amended to
accommodate for this technology. The agency also plans to consider
potential misuse and how restraints with this technology perform under
the test procedures outlined in FMVSS No. 213a with and without the
technology deployed.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is denying Cybex's request
to provide guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a's test procedures apply to
deployable side impact technology.
b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed or Movable Surface To Restrain
the Child in FMVSS No. 213a
Cybex noted that the current FMVSS No. 213 allows the use of a
forward restraining surface (e.g., shield) in lieu of a harness.
However, Cybex states the side impact final rule did not consider CRSs
that use a forward restraining surface. Cybex argued that the 25-degree
dummy arm positioning required in the new FMVSS No. 213a standard could
not be met in forward facing CRSs with restraining surfaces.
Accordingly, Cybex requested clarification regarding test dummy arm
positioning for CRSs with restraining surfaces. Cybex also asked
whether placing the dummy's arm above the forward restraining surface
would be considered as ``inhibiting the torso or head movement.'' Cybex
noted that if this interaction is considered as ``inhibiting the torso
or head movement,'' it requested clarification on the allowable limb
position.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cybex provided a picture of a shield-type CRS with a dummy
to exemplify. The petition can be found at Docket No. NHTSA-2022-
0051-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response: NHTSA is granting Cybex's request to specify arm
placement in FMVSS No. 213a testing for shield-type CRSs where the arm
cannot be placed at a 25-degree angle. As background, FMVSS No. 213a
specifies a procedure in S9.2(d) and S9.3(d) to position the Q3s
dummy's arm in CRSs that can be used forward-facing and/or rear-facing.
The arm is rotated downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's
midsagittal plane until the arm engages the Q3s detent that positions
the arm at a 25-degree angle with respect to the thorax. However, some
CRS designs equipped with a fixed or movable surface \5\ that restrain
the dummy \6\ may prevent the arm from engaging the detent to position
the arm at a 25-degree angle with respect to the thorax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fixed or movable CRS surfaces are described in S5.2.2.2 of
FMVSS No. 213 and S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 213b.
\6\ There are no CRSs with a fixed or movable surface that
restrain the child in the U.S. market currently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 10.2.2(d) of FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b specifies positioning
the arm of dummies by rotating the limb downwards in the plane parallel
to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of
the CRS or the standard seat assembly. This test procedure applies to
all the dummies used in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b. The procedure provides
for consistent positioning of the dummy's arms for all CRSs, including
the ones equipped with a fixed or movable surface that restrain the
child in FMVSS No. 213.
In response to Cybex's petition, NHTSA is specifying use of the
FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b arm positioning procedure for the Q3s dummy in
FMVSS No. 213a for those CRSs equipped with a fixed or movable surface
that restrain the child and in which the specified 25-degree arm angle
cannot be reached. The 25-degree angle is specified for side impact
testing, positioning the arm to expose the thorax to directly contact
the intruding door or CRS side structure. This arm positioning
procedure produces a more repeatable test. Utilizing the FMVSS Nos. 213
and 213b arm positioning procedure for positioning the Q3s dummy in
FMVSS No. 213a will still achieve NHTSA's goal to position the arm in a
manner that exposes the thorax so that it directly contacts the
intruding door or CRS side structure during 213a testing. An arm
positioned at a 25-degree angle or (slightly) higher would likely not
be considered to ``inhibit the torso or head movement.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ If the CRS design results in a Q3s dummy arm position high
enough that it interacts with the head (inhibiting head movement)
during testing, the CRS design may need to be changed to prevent
this from happening. NHTSA does not expect the arm position to be
high enough to interact with the dummy's head in known shield-type
CRSs. But NHTSA will evaluate this issue on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting Angle Tolerance Correction
FMVSS No. 213a adopted requirements to attach the SISA to the sled
test platform so the Seat Orientation Reference Line (SORL) \8\ of the
seat is at a 10-degree angle counter-clockwise from the perpendicular
to the travel direction of the test platform. Evenflo noted that the
regulatory text has a discrepancy in the angle tolerance specified in
S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. Section 6.1.1(a)(1) specifies the SISA is
mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL is 10 0.1 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform
travel. Figure 2A specifies this angle to be 10 1 degrees.
Evenflo requested clarification on the discrepancy between the text and
the drawing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal
line through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1 to Sec. 571.213a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response: The 0.1 tolerance of the SISA mounting
angle specified in S6.1.1(a)(1) is incorrect. NHTSA is granting
Evenflo's petition to correct the discrepancy in the mounting angle
tolerance between S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. NHTSA is specifying the
[[Page 81839]]
correct tolerance in S6.1.1(a)(1) so that it indicates an angle of 10
1 degrees, making it consistent with Figure 2A.
d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and Protrusion Limits in FMVSS
Nos. 213, 213b and 213a
Evenflo requested NHTSA specify the protrusion dimensions
requirements existing in both FMVSS No. 213 and 213a in the same units.
Evenflo noted that FMVSS No. 213 uses inches while FMVSS No. 213a uses
millimeters. Evenflo argued that this discrepancy can lead to confusion
in application and interpretation of the standard.
Agency Response: NHTSA agrees that the units for the same
protrusion dimension requirements should be the same in FMVSS Nos. 213
(S5.1.1(a) and S5.2.4), 213a (S5.1.1(a) and S5.1.4) and 213b (S5.1.1(a)
and S5.2.4). NHTSA is granting this petition and will change the units
of FMVSS No. 213 and 213b to millimeters to be consistent with FMVSS
No. 213a.
e. Removing ``at NHTSA's Option'' Phrase in S6.1.2
Evenflo sought clarification regarding the phrase ``at NHTSA's
option'' in the FMVSS No. 213b Dynamic Test Procedure section (S6.1.2).
Evenflo explained that the section is followed by test procedures with
each of the attachment methods. Evenflo added that none of the
attachments are optional for a manufacturer when it is certifying
compliance with FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213a. Evenflo argued that if ``at
NHTSA's option'' refers to test options available to NHTSA as part of
its annual test compliance program, then the language is more
appropriate for test procedures and not in the regulation.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Evenflo's petition to remove the
phrase ``at NHTSA's option'' from the regulatory text. This phrase is
included to make clear that NHTSA may conduct the compliance test with
a CRS attached in any or all of its attachment modes. NHTSA notes that
the agency's safety standards specify the test conditions and
procedures that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the
vehicle or equipment (such as CRSs) being tested for compliance to the
safety standard. While manufacturers are required to certify their
products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested in
accordance with the standard and exercise due care in doing so, they
are not specifically required to test their CRSs the way NHTSA tests
child restraints in a compliance test.
f. Removing 45 Degrees CRS Angle at Completion of Test Requirement
Evenflo questioned whether the requirement in S5.1.1 (c) that does
not allow the angle between the system's back support for the child and
the system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the
completion of the test is needed as it is already required in the FMVSS
No. 213 frontal dynamic test. Evenflo also argued that that the frontal
force (fore/aft vehicle direction) component \9\ in the side impact
test is small compared to the side (lateral vehicle direction)
component, and, small compared to the frontal component of the frontal
crash in FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The sled test forces acting upon a CRS can be represented as
a 3-dimentional force vector. The portion of that force vector that
is parallel to the fore/aft (frontal) ``vehicle'' direction is the
frontal component of the force vector. The FMVSS No. 213a sliding
seat test fixture (representing the vehicle seat) is at a 10 degree
angle to the sled's direction of travel during the test. Defining
test forces based upon a coordinate system fixed to the seat
fixture, there are frontal, lateral, and vertical components to the
forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying this petition, and will retain
the S5.1.1 (c) requirement. While the side impact test has a small
longitudinal component, NHTSA believes this requirement will ensure CRS
integrity in a broader range of crash environments. While the agency
has not seen any CRSs fail to meet this requirement during our testing,
the CRS market is constantly evolving, with manufacturers introducing
new designs into the market every year. This requirement will ensure
that future designs perform adequately in a side impact crash as well
as a frontal crash.
g. Correcting Error on Table 1 in Paragraph S5.1.6
Evenflo commented that Table 1 in paragraph S5.1.6 (installation)
does not match the means of installation indicated in S6.1.2.
Agency Response: After reviewing the table example Evenflo showed
in its petition, we note that the table in Evenflo's petition was taken
from the web version of the June 2022 final rule in the docket
system,\10\ and the web version had a formatting error. However, the
June 2022 final rule in the Federal Register \11\ and the electronic
Code of Federal Regulations \12\ display the correct table. Since
receiving Evenflo's comment, the docket system has corrected the table
formatting and now displays the correct table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ www.regulations.gov.
\11\ Web Version: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/30/2022-13658/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-child-restraint-systems-child-restraint-systems-side-impact PDF Version:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-06-30/pdf/2022-13658.pdf.
\12\ Link to the electronic code of federal regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.213a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Clarifications
Evenflo requested several clarifications regarding the contactable
surfaces and protrusion limitation requirements. These clarification
requests included:
(1) If materials such as soft goods, padding, energy absorbing
materials or elements, or flexible materials are permanently affixed to
another component, whether the underlying component is considered
contactable.
(2) Whether the portion of the shell that is adjacent to the
headrest is considered contactable in CRSs with an adjustable headrest.
(3) Whether a contactable surface varies based on the size of the
test dummy or associated with the largest dummy for a given use
configuration.
(4) Whether energy absorbing materials integrated to the system's
structures are considered padding and flexible overlay materials and
whether they would be removed prior to inspection.
(5) Whether energy absorbing material that is attached with
mechanical fasteners (push pins, tape or glue, etc.) is considered
padding or part of the structure to be evaluated for the protrusion
limitations.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Evenflo's clarifications request.
The protrusion limitation requirements in question are not specific to
FMVSS No. 213a and have been present in FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.4) since
1979. The 2014 NPRM proposing the side impact requirements for FMVSS
No. 213 (79FR4570) proposed the same existing protrusion limitation
requirements. There have been no changes to the protrusion limitation
requirements and NHTSA did not receive comments regarding the existing
protrusion limitation requirements in the 2014 NPRM proposing side
impact requirements for CRS. This requirement was also unchanged during
the frontal test upgrade rulemaking, as no proposed changes or comments
were received during that rulemaking either. Therefore, this request is
out of scope for a petition for reconsideration.
[[Page 81840]]
III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and Agency
Response
a. Aligning Compliance Dates
One petitioner, JPMA, urged NHTSA to align the required compliance
dates for FMVSS No, 213 (December 5, 2024), FMVSS No. 213a (June 30,
2025) and FMVSS No. 213b (December 5, 2026) to avoid unnecessary costs.
JPMA argued that the current compliance schedule would result in
duplicative efforts regarding ``instruction and label revisions,
tooling modifications, model testing and certification processes,
marketing materials and more, adding unnecessary costs and
challenges.'' JPMA explained that every modification triggers a change
to the Universal Product Code. JPMA stated that such a change results
in product histories and customer reviews starting over for new
products, which reduces consumer confidence in established products and
brands. JPMA stated that these changes also disrupt retailer
relationships with changing product models that sometimes result in
buybacks of older versions of the products.
JPMA suggested that the compliance date for the changes to the
three standards be aligned with the FMVSS No. 213b compliance date
(December 5, 2026) to avoid any unnecessary burdens and to minimize
costs for manufacturers. As an alternative, JPMA suggested aligning the
labeling changes of FMVSS No. 213 and the side impact requirements in
FMVSS No. 213a to a December 5, 2025, compliance date. JPMA explained
that this date is favorable for the manufacturers to avoid challenges
of midyear product changes and would allow them five additional months
to work on the new FMVSS No. 213a side impact requirements.
Agency Response: NHTSA is partially granting JPMA's petition to
align the FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b compliance dates. In the side
impact final rule, we discussed that the agency did not see a reason to
delay the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a, or to shorten the lead
time for FMVSS No. 213b. The agency explained that making the
compliance dates of the two rules coincide had some merit but the
consequences of aligning the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a with
that of FMVSS No. 213b would delay the significant safety benefits \13\
of side impact protection and thereby outweigh any such merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The FMVSS No. 213a side impact final rule calculated an
annual reduction of 3.7 fatalities and 41 serious non-fatal
injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the option for early compliance, manufacturers have
flexibility in deciding when to meet these updated standards. FMVSS No.
213b test results showed that some current CRS designs already meet
performance requirements using the new sled text fixture. CRS
manufacturers will have an opportunity for early compliance for their
CRS models that need no change or only need small design changes, and
if desired, to voluntarily comply with the FMVSS No. 213b requirements
by the June 30, 2025, compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a to reduce their
burden.
To alleviate some of JPMA's concerns on duplicative efforts due to
the different compliance dates, we are aligning the updates to FMVSS
No. 213 from the frontal test upgrade final rule and the side impact
final rule to a single compliance date of June 30, 2025. This action
partially grants JPMA's petition. The compliance date alignment will
reduce unnecessary burdens through minimization of costs to
manufacturers caused by multiple model number changes for a particular
CRS design in a short period of time. This change provides an
additional 6-7 months for manufacturers to align their labeling and
registration card designs and launch them together along with the side
impact changes.
One of JPMA's requests was to align the FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No.
213a compliance dates to the December 5, 2025, compliance date for
FMVSS No. 213b. As noted earlier, delaying the compliance date of FMVSS
No. 213a would delay the significant safety benefits from improved side
impact protection afforded to children seated in applicable CRSs.
Additionally, delaying the FMVSS No. 213 labeling and registration card
changes that were finalized in the December 5, 2023 frontal test
upgrade final rule notice by an additional year (December 5, 2025)
would delay the safety benefits garnered from these updates.\14\ NHTSA
is granting a little over 6 months delay in requiring compliance with
the labeling and registration updates to reduce manufacturer's burden
of introducing products to the market multiple times. NHTSA believes
this approach reduces burden to manufacturers without significantly
impacting the realization of benefits from the updated labeling
requirements and does not see need to further delay the benefits.
Therefore, NHTSA is denying the petition to align the FMVSS Nos. 213
and 213a compliance date to December 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NHTSA estimated potentially 0.7 to 2.3 lives will be saved
and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical severity injuries prevented
annually when all CRSs in the fleet have the updated labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or Changing Sunset Date
JPMA expressed concerns with retaining Type 1 belt testing until
2029 without the opportunity for regulatory comment. JPMA claimed that
the testing is duplicative considering that CRSs would already be
tested with lower anchors and Type 2 belts. JPMA added that NHTSA
should consider the time for product validation required by the other
changes to FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b that will require new full
evaluations and would delay development of future CRS models.
JPMA argued that the data presented in the side impact final rule
where NHTSA estimated ``36% of the 2022 light duty vehicle fleet are of
model years (MY) 2000-2007 that do not have Type 2 belts in all rear
seating positions'' is faulty. JPMA noted that in a 2004 final rule (69
FR 70904) amending FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' the
agency stated that approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and 49%
of the light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear
center seat. JPMA argued that the data presented showed the sunset date
of September 1, 2029, to remove Type 1 seat belt testing, exceeds the
objective stated in the final rule of 90 percent of vehicle having Type
2 belts in the rear center seat.
JPMA urged NHTSA to remove the unnecessarily duplicative testing
with Type 1 belts to move towards NHTSA's stated goal of encouraging
future CRS designs that take advantage of the shoulder belt portion of
the seat belt to reduce excursions or to recalculate the sunset date
based on more complete vehicle data.
Agency Response: NHTSA is granting JPMA's petition to remove Type 1
seat belt CRS (other than harnesses) \15\ installation testing in FMVSS
No. 213b. Additionally, NHTSA has decided to amend a labeling
requirement relating to Type 1 seat belts in FMVSS No. 213 as part of
the agency's response to this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Per the December 5, 2023 final rule, harnesses will
continue to be tested only with a Type 1 belt. Type 1 belt
installation testing for harnesses was not meant to sunset in the
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Removing Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing from FMVSS
No. 213b. While JPMA pointed to a 2004 final rule (69 FR 70904) where
NHTSA indicated that ``approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and
49% of the light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear
center seat,'' JPMA is
[[Page 81841]]
incorrect in its understanding of that data. We note that this
percentage did not reflect the vehicle fleet at the time but instead
referred to the percentage of vehicles that provided Type 2 seat belts
in model year (MY) 2000 vehicles.\16\ However, NHTSA recognizes that
the estimates from the December 2023 final rule do not take into
account vehicles older than MY 2008 that voluntarily provided Type 2
seat belts; therefore, the agency acknowledges that the estimates of
Type 1 availability in the fleet (36 percent) should be reevaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This is analysis explained in the Final Economic Assessment
of the 2004 final rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2004-18726-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To more accurately calculate the percentage of vehicles in the
fleet without Type 2 seat belts, NHTSA calculated this percentage with
estimates that include the percentages of vehicles that voluntarily
provided Type 2 seat belts in vehicles older than MY 2008 to decide
whether the sunset of Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing should
be changed. Model year 2008 vehicles or newer are required to have Type
2 belts in rear center seats, so there would be no Type 1 seat belts in
the rear center seating position for those vehicles.
NHTSA used a 2015 study \17\ for estimated percentages of vehicles
older than MY 2008 with rear center Type 1 seat belts. The study
determined 59.9 percent of cars and 71.7 percent of light trucks and
vans (LTVs) for MY 2007 and earlier had rear center Type 1 seat belts.
NHTSA multiplied those shares by the 2022 total vehicle registrations
\18\ to estimate the percentage of vehicles that have Type 1 belts in
rear center seating positions. NHTSA estimated that 15 percent of the
light duty fleet in 2022 had rear center Type 1 seat belts. NHTSA then
applied vehicle survivability schedules to estimate future fleet
estimates of vehicles with rear center Type 1 seat belts. Estimates
show that in 2026, only 9 percent of vehicles in the fleet are expected
to have rear center lap belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Kahane, C.J., National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Lives saved by vehicle safety technologies and
associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012--
Passenger cars and LTVs--With reviews of 26 FMVSS and the
effectiveness of their associated safety technologies in reducing
fatalities, injuries, and crashes'' (report No. DOT HS 812 069)
(Jan. 2015). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069.
\18\ Vehicle registration data for passenger vehicles (cars and
light trucks) were obtained from R.L. Polk's National Vehicle
Population Profile (NVPP). The Polk data set is a compilation of all
passenger vehicles that have been registered in compliance with
State requirements. (R.L. Polk is a foundation of IHS Markit
automotive solutions.)
Table 1--Rear Center Type 1 Seat Belt Availability in the Vehicle Fleet
by Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear center lap
Year belt share (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022.................................................. 15.0
2023.................................................. 13.4
2024.................................................. 11.8
2025.................................................. 10.3
2026.................................................. 9.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the side impact final rule, NHTSA noted that CRS testing with
Type 1 seat belt attachment would end when 90 percent of the fleet
consists of vehicles with Type 2 seat belts at all rear seating
positions.\19\ The new estimates show that by the time FMVSS No. 213b
becomes mandatory on December 5, 2026, the vehicle fleet would already
have 91 percent of vehicles with Type 2 seat belts in all rear seating
positions. Therefore, the agency is removing the requirements from
FMVSS No. 213b to test CRSs (other than harnesses) with Type 1 seat
belt installations. If a manufacturer chooses to comply early with
FMVSS No. 213b for a CRS model, that CRS model would not have to be
tested with Type 1 seat belt installation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NHTSA stated in the December 2023 final rule that Type 1
seat belt installation tests become less necessary for safety with
the continued reduction of the share of older vehicles (older than
2008 MY) having Type 1 belts. The Type 1 seat belt installation
tests may be preventing CRS manufacturers from designing lap-
shoulder belt paths that may function as a tether. This pseudo-
tether would reduce a child's head excursions, reducing injury
severities and lowering the fatality risk for a larger portion of
the market. Therefore, ending Type 1 seat belt installation tests
when 90% of the fleet have Type 2 seat belts at all rear seating
positions serves a good balance to further improve child safety.
\20\ NHTSA expects that if a CRS manufacturer chooses early
compliance with FMVSS No. 213b, it would align to the FMVSS No. 213a
compliance date (June 2025). For those models, Type 1 seat belt
installation would no longer be evaluated. Given the new calculated
estimates, the fleet with vehicles having Type 1 seat belts will
have reached 10.3%, which is only slightly above the 10% target in
the December 2023 final rule. Not all CRS manufacturers will choose
to comply early so NHTSA believes this 10.3% is acceptable as this
number will continue to decline as 2026 approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Restoring Type 1 seat belt labeling requirements in FMVSS No.
213. In addition to granting JPMA's petition above, NHTSA has also
decided to amend FMVSS No. 213's labeling requirements relating to Type
1 seat belts. Specifically, NHTSA is restoring paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2)
to its prior version, before the frontal test upgrade final rule was
issued.
Before the frontal test upgrade final rule, paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2)
required that CRSs have an installation diagram attached to the CRS
showing the CRS installed with a Type 1 seat belt. During the process
of amending the regulatory text for FMVSS No. 213 as part of the
frontal test upgrade final rule, the agency deleted this requirement,
making it so paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) simply read ``[Reserved].'' Because
the agency has decided to amend the lap belt requirements in FMVSS No.
213b as part of this petition for reconsideration response, but has not
applied that same amendment to FMVSS No. 213, CRSs certified to FMVSS
No. 213 up until 2026 will still have to be certified with Type 1
belts. Accordingly, the agency feels it is necessary for CRSs certified
to FMVSS No. 213 to have a label attached showing a diagram of the CRS
installed with a Type 1 belt. For the reasons discussed above, the
agency will be restoring this requirement in paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) of
FMVSS No. 213 as part of this final rule.
c. Unit Conversion Consistency
JPMA and Evenflo requested that FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b have a
consistent metric conversion number for standards that specify 40-
pounds, as currently the standards specify 18 kg, 18.2 kg, and 18.4 kg
in various places. JPMA and Evenflo encouraged a rounded 18 kg
conversion even though it is not an exact conversion. Evenflo noted
that the FMVSS No. 213 regulation has long used 18 kg as the equivalent
to 40 pounds in labeling requirements. As an alternative, the
petitioners suggested using a more exact conversion (rounding to a
single decimal place) of 18.1 kg.
Agency Response: NHTSA has reviewed the regulatory text sections
with inconsistent conversions from 40 pounds to kilograms. NHTSA agrees
that having a single conversion throughout the three standards is
preferable. Therefore, NHTSA is granting this petition and is amending
the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 213b to have an 18
kg value for the 40-pound conversion throughout the standards. As
Evenflo pointed out, NHTSA has used this conversion in the current
FMVSS No. 213 regulatory text. Accordingly, the agency agrees that
amendments to FMVSS No. 213 and 213b should use the same conversion.
d. Remove Duplicative Language
Evenflo requested removing duplicative language. Evenflo noted that
[[Page 81842]]
S5 of FMVSS No. 213b has duplicative language in different
subparagraphs (S5(b)(2) \21\ and S5(g)) \22\ which creates ambiguity
with respect to what is intended and particularly as to whether there
is any substantive difference in the two provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ S5(b)(2) states ``each add-on child restraint system
manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is recommended for
children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms
(40 pounds) regardless of height, or for children in a height range
that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters (mm) regardless of
weight, shall meet the requirements in this standard and the
applicable side impact protection requirements in Standard No. 213a
(Sec. 571.213a).''
\22\ S5(g) states ``Each add-on child restraint system
manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is recommended for
children in a weight range that includes weights less than 18
kilograms (40 pounds) regardless of height, or for children in a
height range that includes heights less than 1100 millimeters
regardless of weight, shall meet the requirements in this standard
and the applicable side impact protection requirements in Standard
No. 213a (Sec. 571.213a).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo also explained that given the discussion in Section XI(h)
of the Preamble to the December 2023 Final Rule (88 FR 84514), Evenflo
understands that the meaning of ``up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' is
substantively synonymous with ``less than 18 Kilograms (40 pounds).
Agency Response: NHTSA is granting Evenflo's petition to remove
duplicative language in S5(b)(2) and S5(g) by removing S5(g). NHTSA is
also amending S5(b)(2) to provide clearer language. The statement in
S5(b)(2) will be changed from wording describing the CRS recommend
weight and height as ``up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' and ``up to
1100 millimeters (mm)'' to ``less than 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' and
``less than 1100 millimeters (mm),'' respectively.
e. Registration Card Guidelines
JPMA requested guidance on the new registration information for
consumers. JPMA suggested guidance could be in a revised Laboratory
Test Procedure or a separate, dedicated document. JPMA argued that this
guidance should be provided soon due to the short time period prior to
the compliance date for the registration requirements.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying the petition to provide
additional guidance on the registration card. The petitioners requested
guidance on the new registration information for consumers. This
request is for not a rulemaking action, and, therefore, is out of
scope.
NHTSA notes that the regulatory text describes the information that
must be provided in the registration card. NHTSA did not receive any
comments from CRS manufacturers seeking more guidance on this content.
The goal of the changes to the registration form was to provide
flexibility to manufacturers in how they communicate with consumers to
increase registration rates. NHTSA notes that the registration forms
that comply with current requirements would also comply with the new
requirements.
IV. Corrections to Regulatory Text
In the frontal test upgrade final rule (88 FR 84515) published on
December 5, 2023, NHTSA inadvertently omitted important conditional
language in the FMVSS No. 213b regulatory text. The omitted language
creates an inconsistency within the standard, and several stakeholders
have contacted NHTSA's compliance office about this issue. The agency
is correcting the regulatory text as part of this final rule to
alleviate potential confusion.
In the frontal test upgrade final rule, the agency inadvertently
omitted conditional language from FMVSS No. 213b S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii).\23\
This paragraph and subsection were carried over from FMVSS No. 213.
FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2 specifies a labeling requirement for CRSs.
Specifically, paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) requires specific statements
be present on the CRS explaining when and when not to secure the CRS
with the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system. This section has
several conditional requirements, including a requirement that a
statement be present that the child restraint anchorage system should
not be used in certain scenarios for CRSs manufactured from February
27, 2014, to February 26, 2015. The conditional language for this
requirement--that the statement be present on CRSs manufactured in the
time frame referenced above--appears in brackets in that paragraph of
FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The bolded language represents the language that was
omitted from FMVSS No. 213b: ``[For child restraints manufactured
from February 27, 2014 to February 26, 2015, the following statement
applies.] Child restraint systems equipped with internal harnesses
to restrain the child and with components to attach to a child
restraint anchorage system and for which the combined weight of the
child restraint system and the maximum recommended child weight for
use with internal harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, must be labeled with
the following statement: `Do not use the lower anchors of the child
restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child
restraint when restraining a child weighing more than * [*insert a
recommended weight value in English and metric units such that the
sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the child
restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the
internal harnesses of the child restraint.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing FMVSS No. 213b as part of the frontal test upgrade,
much of the language from FMVSS No. 213 was carried over to FMVSS No.
213b. The agency's intent was to carry over paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii)
as drafted in FMVSS 213 to FMVSS No. 213b. That did not happen, as the
parenthetical indicating that the final labeling requirement in
S5.5.2(1)(ii) only applied to seats manufactured between February 27,
2014, and February 26, 2015, was not carried over. The result of that
omission is that CRSs certified to FMVSS No. 213b now must include the
statement instructing consumers when not to use the child restraint
anchorage system, regardless of when the CRS was manufactured. This
requirement creates inconsistency within the standard, as Tables
S5.5.2(L)(3)(I)(B) and (C) provide different labeling requirements for
the maximum weight limit for child restraint anchorage system use. For
newly manufactured CRSs, these tables are what manufacturers should
rely on in determining labeling requirements for weight thresholds for
child restraint anchorage systems. However, because the conditional
language was omitted from paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), there are now two
conflicting labeling requirements for newly produced CRSs.
This outcome is not what the agency intended, and the current
language creates contradictory requirements within the standard. The
agency believes that alleviating confusion with the standard will make
it easier for manufacturers to comply with the standard. Additionally,
this amendment will improve safety outcomes, as the current language
would likely require that manufacturers have contradictory language
printed on labels attached to CRSs. This conflicting language will only
lead to confusion on the part of the consumer and may increase misuse
rates. For the reasons listed above, NHTSA is amending FMVSS No.
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) by removing the last requirement listed in FMVSS No.
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii). We believe this is the proper way to address the
issue discussed above, as no CRSs certified to FMVSS No. 213b will have
been manufactured between 2014 and 2015. Accordingly, there is no
reason to have a labeling requirement in FMVSS No. 213b that applies
only to seats produced during that time frame.
V. Costs and Benefits
The agency expects no safety benefits as a result of this final
rule. However, it is worth noting that the agency believes addressing
the inconsistency in current labeling requirements in FMVSS No. 213b
will only result in positive safety outcomes. There will be a cost
reduction from removing requirements to test CRS secured with Type 1
seat belts. The December 2023 final rule
[[Page 81843]]
estimated a temporary annual testing cost with Type 1 seat belts for 3
years of $5,198,000. This final rule will eliminate the estimated Type
1 seat belt installation test cost in FMVSS No. 213b.
VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date
Because the amendments of this final rule responding to petitions
for reconsideration are minor corrections, these amendments will be
effective on November 8, 2024. The amendments will follow the
compliance dates for the corresponding sections.
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 14904, E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this final rule under
E.O. 12866, E.O. 14094, E.O. 13563, DOT Order 2100.6A and the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This
NPRM is not considered to be significant under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration to the
June 2022 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213a and the December 2023
final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213b. This final rule makes several
changes to FMVSS No. 213, FMVSS No. 213a and FMVSS No. 213b;
specifically, the minor changes provide increased clarity on what the
standard requires and bring increased uniformity across the three
standards. An additional amendment eliminates the Type 1 belt testing
requirement for FMVSS No. 213 through 2029; instead the agency will
only be testing with a Type 2 belt starting in 2026. Accordingly, the
agency updated the costs in preparation of this final rule. The agency
estimates a savings of $5,198,000 compared to the final rule because
manufacturers will not have to conduct tests with Type 1 belts from
2026 through 2029. More information can be found in the ``Discussion of
Benefits and Costs Associated with the Final Rule'' section above.
The minimal impacts of this final rule did not warrant preparation
of a 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), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this
certification.
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there
to be 38 manufacturers of child restraints, none of which are small
businesses. Even if there were a small CRS manufacturer, the impacts of
this rule will not be significant. The amendments made in this final
rule are small, and if anything, the impact of the final rule will
result in a net savings for a small business CRS manufacturer, due to
the fact that it would not have to conduct testing with a Type 1 belt
from 2026 through 2029 to ensure compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
Federalism
NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation
with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated
beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the
rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. This final rule would not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard
for an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance,
a State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that
same aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the
Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command
by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved.
NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this final
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency
has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the
regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule and finds that this
final rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety
standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this final
rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law
would not conflict with the minimum standard finalized in this
document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the NEPA. The
agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Under the procedures established by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq.), a Federal agency must request and receive approval from
the Office of
[[Page 81844]]
Management and Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from
the public and 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.
The final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 (88 FR 84514) included
updates to NHTSA's CRS registration requirements, which constituted an
information collection. Included in that final rule was a notice
soliciting comment on the information collection associated with the
updated CRS registration requirements (OMB Control Number: 2127-0576).
No comments were received. NHTSA will submit the Information Collection
Request to OMB for its review and approval of the revised collection of
information.
This final rule amends the CRS registration requirements adopted in
the frontal test upgrade final rule by pushing the compliance date back
to June of 2025. The change in the compliance date does not impact the
information collection burden outlined in the frontal test upgrade
final rule and none of the other amendments in this final rule create
``collections of information'' as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
The UMBRA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
annually for inflation, with base year of 1995). UMRA also requires an
agency issuing an NPRM or final rule subject to the Act to select the
``least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.'' This final rule would not
result in a Federal mandate that will likely 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 annually
for inflation, with base year of 1995).
E.O. 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under E.O.
12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as
appropriate: (1) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2)
specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed,
displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative
proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court;
(6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of
regulations.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that
there is no requirement that an individual submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they
may file suit in court.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Under the NTTAA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies
and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities
determined by the agencies and departments.'' Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the
International Organization for Standardization and the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs this agency to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There are no voluntary
consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies
pertaining to this final rule.
Plain Language Requirement
E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes
consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in promulgating this final rule. Please inform the agency if
you can suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.
Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The DOT assigns a 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. The RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this
notice may be used to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone can 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).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by Reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, and Tires.
Regulatory Text
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by
0
a. In paragraph S4, revising the definition of ``School bus child
restraint system'';
[[Page 81845]]
0
b. In paragraph S5.1.1 revising the introductory text and paragraph
(a);
0
c. Revising the headings of table 1 and table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a);
0
d. Revising paragraphs S5.2.4, S5.3.2.1, S5.5.2(f) introductory text,
S5.5.2(f)(2), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i) and (ii),
0
e. Adding paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraphs S5.6.1.7(a) introductory text, S5.6.1.7(b),
S5.6.1.11, S5.6.2.2(a) introductory text, S5.6.2.2(b), S5.8.1(a),
S5.8.1.1 introductory text, S5.8.2(a) introductory text, and S5.8.2.1
introductory text.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Child restraint systems; Applicable unless a vehicle or
child restraint system is certified to Sec. 571.213b.
* * * * *
S4. Definitions
* * * * *
School bus child restraint system means an add-on child restraint
system (including a harness) manufactured and sold only for use on
school bus seats, that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b). (This
definition applies to child restraint systems manufactured on or after
June 30, 2025.)
* * * * *
S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a
radius of less than 6 mm or surfaces with protrusions greater than 9 mm
above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any
structural element of the system.
* * * * *
Table 1 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints that Can Be Used
Forward-Facing Manufactured Before June 30, 2025
* * * * *
Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used
Forward-Facing Manufactured After June 30, 2025
* * * * *
S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural
component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of
a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of
S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material
removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system
surface of not more than 9 mm and no exposed edge with a radius of less
than 6 mm.
* * * * *
S5.3.2.1 School bus child restraint systems manufactured on or
after June 30, 2025, shall be capable of meeting the requirements of
this standard when installed by seat back mount, or, seat back mount
and seat pan mount.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(f) For child restraint systems manufactured before June 30, 2025,
paragraph (f)(1) of this section applies. For child restraint systems
manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, paragraph (f)(2) of this
section applies.
* * * * *
(2) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 30,
2025: Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the mass and height
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward facing,
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend forward-facing use
for child restraint systems with internal harnesses for children of
masses less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend booster seats
for children of masses less than 18 kg (40 lb).
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by
5.5.2(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), 5.5.2(j),
and 5.5.2(i). For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June
30, 2025, the statements required by 5.5.2(f) and 5.5.2(k)(2) need not
be included.
(ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint
anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds,
harnesses, and belt positioning seats, the first part of the statement
regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is
optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.]
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(l) * * *
(2) A seating position equipped with only a lap belt, as specified
in the manufacturer's instructions; and
* * * * *
S5.6.1.7. (a) For child restraint systems manufactured before June
30, 2025, one of the following statements, inserting an address and a
U.S. telephone number. If a manufacturer opts to provide a website on
the registration card as permitted in Figure 9a of this section, the
manufacturer must include the statement in paragraph S5.6.1.7(a)(2):
* * * * *
(b) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 30,
2025, the child restraint system shall include statements informing the
owner of the importance of registering the child restraint for recall
purposes and instructing the owner how to register the child restraint
at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S. telephone number.
The following statement must also be provided: ``For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.6.1.11 (a) For harnesses that are manufactured before June 30,
2025, for use on school bus seats, the instructions must include the
following statement: ``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on
school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or
have restrained occupants.'' The labeling requirement refers to a
restrained occupant as: an occupant restrained by any user appropriate
vehicle restraint or child restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and
shoulder belt, booster, child seat, harness . . .).
(b) For school bus child restraint systems manufactured on or after
June 30, 2025, the instructions must include the following statement:
``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats. Entire
seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained occupants.''
(The instruction's reference to a ``restrained occupant'' refers to an
occupant restrained by any user-appropriate vehicle restraint or child
restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder belt, booster seat
or other child restraint system.)
* * * * *
S5.6.2.2. (a) For child restraint systems manufactured before June
30, 2025, the instructions for each built in child restraint system
other than a factory-installed restraint, shall include one of the
following statements, inserting an address and a U.S. telephone number.
If a manufacturer opts to provide a website on the registration card as
permitted in Figure 9a of this section, the manufacturer must include
the statement in S5.6.2.2(a)(2):
* * * * *
[[Page 81846]]
(b) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 30,
2025, the instructions for each built-in child restraint system other
than a factory-installed restraint shall include statements informing
the owner of the importance of registering the child restraint for
recall purposes and instructing the owner how to register the child
restraint at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S. telephone
number. The following statement must also be provided: ``For recall
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.8.1 Attached registration form. (a) For child restraint systems
manufactured before June 30, 2025, each child restraint system, except
a factory-installed built-in restraint system, shall have a
registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that
contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system in
accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213.
* * * * *
S5.8.1.1 Upgraded attached registration form. For child restraint
systems manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, each child restraint
system, except a factory-installed built-in restraint system, shall
have a registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that
contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system in
accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. The form shall not have
advertising or any information other than that related to registering
the child restraint system.
* * * * *
S5.8.2 * * *
(a) Each electronic registration form provided for child restraint
systems manufactured before June 30, 2025, shall:
* * * * *
S5.8.2.1 Upgraded electronic registration form (a) Each electronic
registration form provided for child restraint systems manufactured on
or after June 30, 2025, shall:
* * * * *
0
3. Section 571.213a is amended by revising paragraphs S6.1.1(a)(1),
S9.2(d), and S9.3(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213a Standard No. 213a; Child restraint systems--side impact
protection.
* * * * *
S6.1.1 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) The test device is a SISA consisting of a sliding seat, with
one seating position, and a simulated door assembly as described in
``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213a--Side impact No. NHTSA-
213a-2021'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The simulated
door assembly is rigidly attached to the floor of the SISA and the
sliding seat is mounted on rails to allow it to move relative to the
floor of the SISA in the direction perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA
is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL of the seat is
10 1 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test
platform travel.
* * * * *
S9.2 * * *
(d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the
child restraint or the SISA. Rotate each of the dummy's arms downwards
in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm is
engaged on the detent that positions the arm at a 25-degree angle with
respect to the thorax. For child restraint systems with a fixed or
movable surface that does not allow the dummy's arm to be positioned at
a 25-degree angle, rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane
parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a
surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly.
S9.3 * * *
(d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's
midsagittal plane until the limb is positioned at a 25-degree angle
with respect to the thorax. For child restraint systems with a fixed or
movable surface that does not allow the dummy's arm to be positioned at
a 25-degree angle, rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane
parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a
surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 571.213b is amended by
0
a. Revising paragraph S5(b)(2);
0
b. Removing paragraph S5(g);
0
c. Revising paragraphs S5.1.1 introductory text, S5.1.1.(a), table 2 in
paragraph S5.1.3.1(a), S5.2.4, table 4 in paragraph S5.3.2, S5.5.2(f),
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), S5.5.5(f), and S7.1.2(d) and (e).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 571.213b Standard No. 213b; Child restraint systems; Mandatory
applicability beginning December 5, 2026.
* * * * *
S5 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that
includes weights less than 18 kilograms (40 pounds) regardless of
height, or for children in a height range that includes heights less
than 1100 millimeters (mm) regardless of weight, shall meet the
requirements in this standard and the applicable side impact protection
requirements in Standard No. 213a (Sec. 571.213a).
* * * * *
S5.1 * * *
S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a
radius of less than 6 mm or surfaces with protrusions greater than 9 mm
above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any
structural element of the system.
* * * * *
S5.1.3.1 * * *
(a) * * *
Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used Forward-Facing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: in the
test specified in 2nd
column, the excursion
requirement must be met
When this type of child restraint Is tested in These excursion limits when the child restraint
system accordance with-- apply system is attached to the
test seat assembly in the
manner described below,
subject to certain
conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All harnesses...................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt; in
mm. addition, if a tether is
provided, it is attached.
[[Page 81847]]
Restraints designed for use by S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
children with physical mm. shoulder belt; in
disabilities. addition, if a tether is
provided, it is attached.
School bus child restraint systems. S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with seat back
mm. mount, or seat back and
seat pan mounts.
Booster seats...................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii)...... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
mm. shoulder belt; no tether
is attached.
Child restraint systems other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap and
harnesses, restraints designed for mm. shoulder belt; without a
use by children with physical tether attached.
disabilities, school bus child Attached to lower
restraint systems, and booster anchorages of child
seats. restraint anchorage
system; without a tether
attached.
Child restraint systems other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), Head 720 mm; Knee 915 Attached with a lap and
harnesses, restraints designed for S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). mm. shoulder belt, with a
use by children with physical tether attached.
disabilities, school bus child Attached to lower
restraint systems. anchorages of child
restraint anchorage
system, with a tether
attached.
Child restraint systems equipped S6.1.2(a)(2).......... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
with a fixed or movable surface mm. shoulder belt or lower
described in S5.2.2.2 that has anchorages of child
belts that are not an integral restraint anchorage
part of that fixed or movable system; no tether is
surface. attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural
component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of
a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of
S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material
removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system
surface of not more than 9 mm and no exposed edge with a radius of less
than 6 mm.
* * * * *
S5.3.2 * * *
Table 4 for S5.3.2 Means of Installation for Child Restraint Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower
anchorages of Lower
Type 1 seat Type 2 seat the child anchorages of Seat back
belt assembly belt assembly Type 2 seat restraint the child mount, or, seat
Type of add-on child restraint system plus a tether plus a tether belt assembly anchorage restraint back mount,
anchorage, if anchorage, if system plus a anchorage and, seat pan
needed needed tether, if system mount
needed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus child restraint systems................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... X
Harnesses......................................... X ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Car beds.......................................... ............... ............... X ............... ............... ...............
Rear-facing restraints............................ ............... ............... X ............... X ...............
Booster seats..................................... ............... ............... X ............... ............... ...............
All other child restraint systems................. ............... X X X X ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the weight and height
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward facing,
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend that child restraint
systems with internal harnesses be used forward-facing with children of
weights less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend that booster
seats be used by children of weights less than 18 kg (40 lb).
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint
anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds,
harnesses, and belt positioning seats, the first part of the statement
regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is
optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.]
* * * * *
S5.5.5 * * *
(f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the weight and height
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward facing,
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend forward-facing child
restraint systems with internal harnesses for children of weights less
[[Page 81848]]
than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend booster seats for
children of weights less than 18 kg (40 lb).
* * * * *
S7.1.2 * * *
(d) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that
includes any children whose height is greater than 870 mm but not
greater than 1100 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572, subpart P dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy).
(e) A child restraint system that is recommended by its
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight
greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that
includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm but not
greater than 1250 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part
572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6- year-old dummy).
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-22448 Filed 10-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P