[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 103 (Friday, May 30, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23009-23018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571 and Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0046]
RIN 2127-AM62
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213a; Child Restraint
Systems--Side Impact Protection; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 213; Child Restraint Systems, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 213b; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; Grant of petitions for
rulemaking and other proposals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to the safety standards for
child restraint systems (CRSs). NHTSA is proposing to amend FMVSS No.
213a, ``Child restraint systems--side impact protection,'' to exempt
school bus CRSs from the standard's requirements as long as they meet
specified labeling requirements; to delay the compliance date from June
30, 2025 to December 5, 2026; to provide that the Child Restraint Air
Bag Interaction twelve-month-old (CRABI-12MO) test dummy will not be
used to test forward-facing CRSs; and to amend the positioning
procedures for that dummy. The first two of these amendments are in
response to petitions from CRS manufacturers. NHTSA is also proposing
to amend FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems'' and FMVSS No. 213b,
``Child restraint systems; Mandatory applicability beginning December
5, 2026,'' to exclude school bus CRSs from the requirements to provide
attachments for connection to the vehicle's child restraint anchorage
system and to change certain labeling requirements to reflect how
school bus child restraints are used.
DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than June 30, 2025.
Proposed Effective date: The effective date would be the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9332 before
coming.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (email:
[email protected]). For legal issues, you may contact John
Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel (email: [email protected]). You can
reach these officials by phone at 202-366-1810. 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. Background
III. Proposed Amendments to Side Impact Requirements (FMVSS No.
213a)
A. Exempt School Bus CRSs From the Side Impact Requirements
B. Exclude the CRABI-12MO Test Dummy From Testing Forward-Facing
CRSs and Make Corresponding Amendments to the Dummy Positioning
Procedures
C. Delay the Compliance Date From June 30, 2025 to December 5,
2026
IV. Proposed Amendments to Front Impact Requirements (FMVSS Nos. 213
and 213b)
V. Costs and Benefits
VI. Proposed Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VIII. Public Participation
Proposed Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
This document proposes amendments to three different safety
standards: FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems; Applicable unless
a vehicle or child restraint system is certified to Sec. 571.213b'';
FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint systems; Mandatory applicability
beginning December 5, 2026''; and FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child restraint
systems--side impact protection.'' FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a, and 213b set
out most of the agency's safety requirements for child restraint
systems (CRS).
This document proposes four amendments to the side impact standard
(FMVSS No. 213a):
Exempt school bus CRSs from the side impact requirements
in FMVSS No. 213a. The December 5, 2023 final rule updating FMVSS No.
213 and establishing FMVSS No. 213b for frontal impact requirements,
amended the standards to permit more types of add-on CRSs specially
designed for
[[Page 23010]]
exclusive use on school buses, that were not permitted at the time,
with the intent to facilitate the availability of these CRSs that are
only used on school buses. Because these CRSs are designed to install
on school bus seats with seat back mounts, their construction does not
provide rigid side structures (similar to harnesses) and because the
side impact environment in school buses is different from the side
impact environment simulated by the FMVSS No. 213a standard, the agency
is proposing to exempt school bus CRSs from FMVSS No. 213a. This
proposal is NHTSA's action on a grant of petitions for rulemaking from
IMMI and BESI, Inc.
Delay the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a from June 30,
2025 to December 5, 2026. The agency received a petition for rulemaking
from a group of CRS manufacturers which requested a delay on the FMVSS
No. 213a compliance date to ``prevent market disruption resulting in
reduced availability of CRSs'' and due to ``limited availability of
compliance lab sled time'' that is needed for the development and
certification of their products. This proposal is NHTSA's action on a
grant of petitions for rulemaking from a group of CRS manufacturers.
Provide that the CRABI-12MO test dummy will not be used to
test forward-facing CRSs for side impact requirements in FMVSS No.
213a. The frontal update standard (FMVSS No. 213b) requires that
forward-facing CRSs must have a minimum recommended child weight of 12
kg (26.5 lbs.). Since the CRABI-12MO dummy only weighs 10 kg (22 lb.),
the standard excluded testing forward-facing CRSs with the CRABI-12MO
dummy because the dummy would be too small for the CRS design. To
maintain consistency between standards, the agency proposes to exclude
testing forward-facing CRSs from side impact requirements in FMVSS No.
213a.
Amend the positioning procedures for the CRABI-12MO dummy
to reflect that the dummy would no longer be tested with forward-facing
CRSs.
NHTSA is also proposing to amend FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint
systems'' and FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint systems; Mandatory
applicability beginning December 5, 2026,'' to exclude school bus CRSs
from the requirements to provide attachments for connection to the
vehicle's child restraint anchorage system. Generally, school bus CRSs
have a seat back mounting installation method that is necessary for
school bus seats. It was not the intent of the agency to apply the
requirement for child restraint anchorage system attachments to the
school bus CRSs when the agency finalized the frontal impact update
final rule. Therefore, NHTSA proposes to add school bus CRSs to the
exclusion list in both FMVSS No. 213 S5.9(a) and FMVSS No. 213b
S5.9(a). The agency also proposes to amend S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) in FMVSS
Nos. 213 and 213b which require a labeling statement regarding how to
secure the CRS to the vehicle to be consistent with the seat back mount
required in school bus CRSs.
II. Background
This document proposes amendments to three different safety
standards: FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems; Applicable unless
a vehicle or child restraint system is certified to Sec. 571.213b'';
FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint systems; Mandatory applicability
beginning December 5, 2026''; and FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child restraint
systems--side impact protection.'' FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a, and 213b set
out most of the agency's safety requirements for child restraint
systems (CRS). Each of these three standards has either been
established or updated in final rules over the past 3 years. Below we
provide some brief background information on the recent regulatory
history for these standards to provide context for the proposed
amendments.
FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b--The Frontal Impact Standards
FMVSS No. 213 is the original CRS standard, which was established
in the 1970s.\1\ FMVSS No. 213 sets out a number of requirements for
CRSs, but perhaps the most significant portion of FMVSS No. 213 is its
requirements for frontal impact protection. The standard sets out a
test procedure that involves a sled bench and a crash pulse that
simulates a frontal collision. CRSs must meet certain minimum
requirements during these crash tests (e.g., maximum head and knee
excursions of a restrained child-size test dummy, head and chest injury
criteria).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The standard has been updated throughout the years by, among
other things, incorporating new child dummies, updating the
standard's test seat assembly, and requiring CRSs to provide means
to attach the CRS to the vehicle child restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2020 NHTSA published an NPRM that proposed sweeping updates to
the frontal impact standard,\2\ and in 2023 NHTSA published a final
rule.\3\ In implementing these changes, NHTSA created a new standard,
FMVSS No. 213b. FMVSS No. 213 applies to CRSs manufactured before
December 5, 2026, and FMVSS No. 213b applies to child restraint systems
manufactured on or after December 5, 2026. FMVSS No. 213 therefore
sunsets on December 5, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 85 FR 69388 (Nov. 2, 2020).
\3\ 88 FR 84514 (Dec. 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration to the 2023
frontal impact final rule (from Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA) and Evenflo). Both petitions were timely filed
within 45 days after each respective rule was published. The petitions
concerned a variety of issues. For example, JPMA requested removing
testing CRSs installed with lap belt only in frontal sled test, and
guidance on the new registration information for consumers, while
Evenflo requested the deletion of duplicative language.
NHTSA responded to these petitions in a final rule published on
October 9, 2024.\4\ (This final rule also responded to petitions for
reconsideration received on the side impact final rule, which is
discussed in the immediately following section.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 89 FR 81836 (Oct. 9, 2024) (final rule and response to
petitions for reconsideration for FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a, and 213b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 213a--The Side Impact Standard
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (``MAP-21''),
enacted in 2012, directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking to improve
safety for children involved in side impact crashes.\5\ In response to
this mandate, in 2014 NHTSA published an NPRM proposing side impact
protection requirements for CRSs under a new standard, FMVSS No.
213a.\6\ NHTSA finalized the rule in 2022.\7\ The final rule
established, among other things, performance requirements that must be
met in a test simulating the acceleration pulse and door intrusion that
occurs in a real-world side impact. The compliance date of the final
rule is June 30, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 112-141, Sec. 31501(a).
\6\ 79 FR 4570 (Jan. 28, 2014).
\7\ 87 FR 39234 (June 30, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received two petitions for reconsideration to the 2022 side
impact final rule (from Columbus Trading Partners USA, Inc (Cybex
products distributor) and Evenflo). Both petitions were timely filed
within 45 days after the final rule was published and concerned a
variety of issues. For example, Cybex requested NHTSA clarify how
fixed, adjustable, and configurable side impact technologies will be
tested in future annual compliance test programs. NHTSA responded to
these petitions in the same notice published on October 9, 2024 that
responded to the petitions for
[[Page 23011]]
reconsideration of the 2023 frontal impact final rule.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions for Reconsideration and Rulemaking Subsequent to the October
2024 Final Rule
After publishing the October 2024 final rule responding to the
petitions for reconsideration of the frontal impact and side impact
rulemakings, NHTSA received three additional petitions for
reconsideration, as well as a related petition for rulemaking. The
petitions for reconsideration were from IMMI (dated November 18, 2024);
BESI, Inc. (dated November 22, 2024); and a group of CRS manufacturers
\9\ (dated November 24, 2024). IMMI and BESI requested that NHTSA
exempt school bus CRSs that do not meet the regulatory definition of
``harness'' in FMVSS Nos. 213a from the side impact requirements. IMMI
also submitted a petition for rulemaking on January 8, 2025 that
highlighted the same issues raised in its petition for reconsideration.
The petition for reconsideration from the group of CRS manufacturers
requested a delay of the June 30, 2025, compliance date of the side
impact standard to prevent ``significant market disruption resulting
from a reduced availability of child restraint systems and higher costs
than necessary for those that are available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ BabyTrend, Babyark, DECA Consulting, Diono, Doona,
KidsEmbrace, Peg Parego, and Safe Traffic System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the petitions do not request reconsideration of any
amendments made in the October 2024 final rule,\10\ and in accordance
with NHTSA's regulations, the agency has decided to treat the three
petitions for reconsideration as petitions for rulemaking. The agency
has informed all petitioners of this decision. NHTSA has decided to
grant all three of these petitions for rulemaking and is publishing
this document in furtherance of that grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The petition from the group of CRS manufacturers to delay
the compliance date for the side impact requirements is outside the
scope of the October 2024 final rule because that final rule only
discussed compliance dates in the context of amending compliance
dates for the frontal impact update, not the side impact final
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Amendments to Side Impact Requirements (FMVSS No. 213a)
A. Exempt School Bus CRSs From the Side Impact Requirements
The frontal and side impact standards recognize different
categories of CRSs, each of which must meet different requirements
using different required methods of installation. For instance, the
most common category of CRS is an add-on child restraint system, which
is defined as any portable child restraint system. These are the types
of restraints that come to mind when someone colloquially refers to a
CRS as a ``car seat.'' Another category of CRS with specific
requirements is a harness, which the standards define as a CRS that
``consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or
similar material, and does not include a rigid seating structure for
the child.'' Harnesses designed for use in vehicles are generally
required to provide a means of installation with a vehicle lap
belt.\11\ Since 2004, however, FMVSS No. 213 had specifically exempted
harnesses manufactured for exclusive use on school buses from this
requirement as long as the harness includes a warning label.\12\ School
bus harnesses attach to school bus seats backs without needing a seat
belt assembly to secure this harness type to the seat. Thus, this type
of harness can be used on large school buses that are not equipped with
seat belts, which is the majority of school buses. School bus harnesses
were exempted from the seat belt installation requirement because many
school districts and school bus operators need a product with a seat
back mount to transport preschoolers, children who need help sitting
upright, and children who need to be physically restrained because of
physical or behavioral needs.\13\ Harnesses manufactured for use on
school buses that are properly labeled are also exempt from some of the
standard's other requirements (e.g., means of installation to lower
anchors). Harnesses manufactured for use on school buses were otherwise
subject to the standard, importantly including the sled test
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ They may be tested with a tether if provided with the CRS.
\12\ 69 FR 10928 (Mar. 9, 2004 (final rule). The warning label
is required to inform users that the harness may be used only on
school bus seats, and that the entire seat directly behind the child
wearing the seat-mounted harness must be either unoccupied or
occupied by restrained passengers.
\13\ 69 FR 10928, March 9, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around the time of the 2004 final rule, restraint manufacturers
began introducing a new type of child restraint for exclusive use in a
school bus--one that utilized a harness consisting primarily of
flexible material for the upper torso, together with a rigid base.\14\
Because such a device did not primarily consist of flexible material,
it was not categorized as a ``harness'' under the FMVSS No. 213 (the
only CRS standard at the time), and therefore did not qualify for the
exemptions that were available for school bus harnesses.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ IMMI comments to 2014 side impact NPRM. Docket No. NHTSA-
2014-0012-0023: ``The STAR utilizes a harness type restraint
consisting primarily of flexible material for the upper torso of the
child that is integrated into a rigid lower base booster
structure.''
\15\ NHTSA letter to IMMI, September 21, 2016: https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/14-001678-immi-star-crs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments to the 2014 side impact NPRM, IMMI raised this
issue with respect to both FMVSS No. 213 and the proposed FMVSS No.
213a.\16\ The side impact NPRM proposed to entirely exempt harnesses
and car beds from the standard. NHTSA did not apply the side impact
standard to harnesses and car beds, which are not designed to protect
children during a side impact collision, because ``of practicability
concerns about the ability of the harness to meet the proposed
requirements and because harnesses serve a need in certain
populations.'' \17\ In its comment, IMMI described one of its child
restraints for exclusive use in a school bus as a hybrid design of
harness and child seat. It noted that while the side impact NPRM
excluded harnesses and car beds from its requirements, it did not
clearly encompass CRSs for exclusive use in a school bus with rigid
elements, such as IMMI's CRS. This inconsistency was consequential
because this type of hybrid school bus CRS is not designed to protect
children in a side impact collision, and so would not comply with the
standard. IMMI suggested a few different options for providing this
flexibility to CRS for exclusive use in school bus manufacturers,
including by clarifying the regulatory text in the CRS standards.
However, the 2022 side impact final rule did not account for this and
therefore did not exempt school bus child restraints that are not
harnesses \18\ from the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ IMMI comments to 2014 side impact NPRM: Docket No. NHTSA-
2014-0012-0023: ``The incorporation of a hybrid harness restraint
consisting primarily of flexible material for the upper torso of the
child that is attached to that rigid lower base booster structure
offers the users with a unique means of attachment and
portability.''
\17\ 79 FR 4570, 4576 (Jan. 28, 2014) (side impact NPRM). See S3
(``This standard applies to add-on child restraint systems . . .
except for car beds and harnesses.'')
\18\ The school bus CRS category had not yet been introduced
into FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the 2023 frontal upgrade final rule did amend
the frontal impact requirements to extend the exemption for school bus
child restraints harnesses to this type of hybrid school bus restraint
IMMI referred to. In response to the NPRM, IMMI and other commenters
supported
[[Page 23012]]
this approach. Accordingly, the 2023 frontal impact final rule
included, among other things, a definition of ``school bus child
restraint system'' that was design-neutral and specific to school bus
seat usage. It defined school bus child restraint system as a child
restraint system (including, but not limited to, harnesses) sold for
exclusive use on school bus seats with a label conforming with
S5.3.1(b) of FMVSS Nos. 213 or 213b. School bus child restraints that
are not harnesses were consequently now required to provide means of
installation with a seat back and/or seat back mount and not required
to provide means of installation with a vehicle seat belt and/or to the
lower anchorages or the child restraint anchorage system, as long as it
is appropriately labeled. However, while NHTSA amended the frontal
impact standards to account for this type of partially rigid school bus
child restraint, it did not similarly amend the side impact
requirements. The result is that while school bus CRSs are exempted
from some of the requirements in the frontal impact standards so that
they are able to comply with it, they are not exempted at all from the
side impact standard, which they are not able to comply with because
they are not designed to provide protection in a side impact.
IMMI and BESI requested that NHTSA exempt school bus CRSs that do
not meet the regulatory definition of ``harness'' in FMVSS Nos. 213a
from the side impact requirements. IMMI noted that it had commented on
this issue in response to the 2014 side impact NPRM, but that the final
rule had not addressed this issue. It also noted meetings that it had
had with NHTSA about this issue. It stated that after the 2022 side
impact final rule was published, IMMI had met with NHTSA and NHTSA
informed it that the matter of school bus child restraints would be
handled in a future rulemaking. IMMI commented that, nevertheless, the
October 2024 final rule also did not address this issue. IMMI also
described its school bus CRS product, the Student Transportation Add-on
Restraint (STAR), which consists of a harness attached to a rigid seat
base that provides fixed anchorage points for the harness's lap belt
and crotch strap. It explained that because the purpose of the STAR is
to safely secure the child to the school bus seat, there is no shell
component in this restraint to provide protection for side impact
collisions. IMMI stated that ``due to the nature of its design, [STAR]
is not capable of meeting the newly established side impact
requirements of FMVSS 213a.'' It also explained what it viewed as the
advantages of the product, and noted that NHTSA has included this type
of CRS in its training materials. IMMI and BESI stated that unless
school bus CRSs are excluded from side impact requirements, they will
have to stop production of these CRSs (for the U.S. market) and that
this would affect Head Start programs which require the use of child
restraint systems in school bus transportation of their students. IMMI
and BESI therefore requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 213a so that
this type of restraint would not be subject to the side impact
protection standard.
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the requests from IMMI and
BESI have merit. While the side impact standard explicitly exempts
harnesses and car beds, which do not need to be certified to the
standard, this exemption does not include school bus child restraints
that are not harnesses. Accordingly, under the current CRS regulatory
framework, there is a path for school bus CRSs--whether they qualify as
harnesses or not--to be compliant under the frontal impact standards,
but there is not a path for those school bus CRSs that are not
harnesses to be compliant under FMVSS No. 213a. Similar to harnesses,
NHTSA believes school bus CRSs should be excluded because of
practicability concerns about the ability of the school bus CRS to meet
the proposed requirements and because school bus CRSs serve a niche
market where the needs cannot be met by any other type of CRS. NHTSA
also recognizes that the side impact crash environment of a school bus
is significantly different from the simulated side impact test in FMVSS
No. 213a. Accordingly, the agency would like to correct this
inconsistency in the CRS standards, and is therefore proposing to
explicitly exempt all school bus CRSs from applicability under the side
impact standard. NHTSA seeks comment on this proposal.
B. Exclude the CRABI-12MO Test Dummy From Testing Forward-Facing CRSs
and Make Corresponding Amendments to the Dummy Positioning Procedures
Child restraint systems must meet the performance requirements in
FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a, and 213b when dynamically tested with
anthropomorphic test devices (test dummies). Each child restraint
system must meet the requirements when oriented in each direction the
CRS is designed to be used in (i.e., forward, rearward).
The 2022 side impact final rule expanded the performance
requirements for child restraint systems (CRSs) by adopting a side
impact test that requires that CRSs meet specified performance
requirements when tested with two different dummies: the well-
established 12-month-old child test dummy (CRABI-12MO) \19\ dummy and a
newer side impact test dummy representing a 3-year-old child (the
Q3s).\20\ NHTSA explained, in the final rule, that it was choosing to
limit testing for the side impact requirements to these two dummies, as
opposed to a broader range of dummies representing children of a wider
range of ages. One reason NHTSA cited was there is no side impact dummy
representative of children larger than those represented by the Q3s
that can reasonably be used to test CRSs for children above 18 kg (40
lb) to the dynamic side impact requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 49 CFR part 572, subpart R--CRABI 12-Month-Old Infant,
Alpha Version.
\20\ 49 CFR part 572, subpart W--Q3s Three-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy.
\21\ See 79 FR 4570, 4573 (Jan. 28, 2014) (side impact NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRABI-12MO represents a twelve-month-old child and weighs 10 kg
(22 lb). FMVSS No. 213a uses the CRABI-12MO to measure the containment
capability of the CRS (the ability to prevent the dummy's head from
making contact with the intruding door of the sled assembly). The
standard specifies the CRABI-12MO for testing CRSs that are recommended
by their manufacturer for use by children in a specified mass range
that includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but
not greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb), or by children in a specified height
range that includes any children whose height is greater than 650 mm
but not greater than 850 mm.
The Q3s represents a 3-year-old and weighs 14.5 kg (32 lb). The
standard specifies the Q3s for testing CRSs that are recommended by
their manufacturer for use by children having a mass greater than 13.6
kg (30 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb), or by children whose
height is greater than 870 mm but not greater than 1100 mm. FMVSS No.
213a uses the Q3s to evaluate the crash forces experienced by a
restrained child and specifies injury criteria (expressed in terms of a
head injury criterion (HIC) and chest deflection) that may not be
exceeded. These criteria allow a quantitative evaluation of the
effectiveness of the CRS to prevent or attenuate head and chest impact
with the intruding door.
The weight and height ranges for selecting either the CRABI-12MO
and the Q3s were specifically chosen to
[[Page 23013]]
mirror the weight ranges specified for testing CRSs to the frontal
impact requirements in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b for CRSs with
manufacturer recommended weights between 5 kg (11 lb) and 18 kg (40
lb).\22\ Specifically, the frontal impact standards specify testing
CRSs recommended for children weighing 5 kg (11 lb) to 13.6 kg (30 lb),
and specify a different 3-year-old dummy (the HIII-3yo) for testing
CRSs recommended for children weighing 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18 kg (40
lb). NHTSA had a variety of reasons for choosing these cutoffs; one of
them was consistency between the front and side impact
requirements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 87 FR 39234, 39290 (June 30, 2022) (side impact final rule)
(``These weight categories were designed to be consistent with the
criteria used in the current FMVSS No. 213 in determining the test
dummies that are used to test child restraints to the standard's
frontal test requirements.'').
\23\ 88 FR 84514, 84516 (December 5, 2023) (frontal update final
rule) (``This final rule makes the following changes to simplify and
make more representative the agency's use of test dummies in
compliance tests (S7) . . . The purpose of these amendments is to
heighten the assessment of CRS performance in protecting a child
occupant.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal for FMVSS No. 213a concerns one aspect of these dummy
specifications for which the specifications in FMVSS No. 213a do not
mirror those in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b. In its comments to the frontal
impact upgrade NPRM, Evenflo pointed out a potential inconsistency in
the testing for which the CRABI-12MO was specified.\24\ Evenflo noted
that while FMVSS No. 213 requires that ``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)'' \25\, the
front impact proposal specified the CRABI-12MO (which weighs 10 kg (22
lb)) for testing CRSs recommended for use with children weighing more
than 10 kg (22 lb) and not more than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Thus, it proposed
using the CRABI-12MO to test CRSs that manufacturers would not have
been permitted to recommend for forward-facing use for children
weighing the same as the dummy.\26\ In response to this comment, NHTSA
added language to the finalized standard providing that ``the CRABI
12MO dummy is not used to test a forward-facing child restraint
system'' in this weight/height range. The final rule preamble also
noted that ``this change has implications for the agency's use of the
CRABI-12MO in FMVSS No. 213a (Side Impact Protection) compliance tests
. . . NHTSA plans to issue an NPRM to propose a conforming amendment to
FMVSS No. 213a that the CRABI-12MO would not be used forward-facing in
the side impact test for CRSs labeled with a turnaround weight of 12 kg
(26.5 lb).'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NHTSA did not receive any comments to the 2014 side impact
NPRM raising this issue.
\25\ FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.2.(f)(2); FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.2(f).
\26\ It would be permissible for manufacturers to recommend a
seat for forward-facing use for a subset of children weighing
between 10 kg (22 lb) and 13.6 kg (30 lb)--namely, children weighing
less than 12 kg (26.5)--but NHTSA has decided not to specify the
CRABI-12MO for testing CRS designated for forward-facing use for
such children in order to simplify the requirements.
\27\ 88 FR 84514, 845551 (Dec. 5, 2023) (frontal impact upgrade
final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is now proposing to amend the side impact standard to include
this language providing that the CRABI-12MO dummy will not be used to
test a forward-facing child restraint system recommended for use by
children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a
mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb), or
by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 650 millimeters but not greater than 870
millimeters. NHTSA believes it would make sense for CRSs to be tested
with the same test dummies in both the frontal impact and side impact
tests to minimize burden on CRS manufacturers. NHTSA also believes that
a requirement to test a CRS in a configuration that is not allowed is
unnecessary and burdensome as CRS manufacturers might have to design
their CRS models to accommodate a dummy representing a child that is
not recommended for that specific CRS and/or CRS configuration.
The agency also proposes to delete paragraphs S9.1(c) and (d) in
FMVSS No. 213a because those sections contain positioning information
relating to testing forward-facing CRSs with a CRABI dummy which would
no longer be relevant. NHTSA is also proposing to amend S9.1(b).
Currently that section describes how to position the CRABI dummy in a
``forward-facing'' child restraint system. Instead, S9.1(b) should
indicate how to position the CRABI dummy in CRSs used rear-facing with
the same procedure that is used in FMVSS No. 213b, for consistency
between the standards and for completeness of the dummy positioning
procedure. NHTSA seeks comment on this proposal.
C. Delay the Compliance Date From June 30, 2025 to December 5, 2026
The petition for reconsideration from the group of CRS
manufacturers \28\ requested a delay of the June 30, 2025, compliance
date of the side impact standard to prevent ``significant market
disruption resulting from a reduced availability of child restraint
systems and higher costs than necessary for those that are available.''
The petitioners argued that the extension is needed because of
``inconsistent results within individual labs and lab to lab
variation,'' and the limited ``availability of compliance lab sled
time'' to develop their products to certify compliance with the new
standard. The petitioners suggested that the agency consider moving the
FMVSS No. 213a compliance date to December 5, 2026, to match the
compliance date of FMVSS No. 213b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ BabyTrend, Babyark, DECA Consulting, Diono, Doona,
KidsEmbrace, Peg Perego, and Safe Traffic System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency has tentatively decided that this petition has merit and
is proposing to delay the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a to December
5, 2026. The side impact standard is new and broadly applicable,
meaning CRS manufacturers must certify most, if not all, of their
products to a variety of new requirements. The agency understands this
takes a significant amount of testing for both research, development,
and certification purposes. Although the agency believes there are
significant safety benefits associated with the side impact standard,
manufacturers potentially having to stop manufacturing certain CRSs
because they cannot comply with the side impact standard by June 30,
2025 would also create potential child safety issues due to reduced
availability of CRSs for purchase. The agency believes that it would be
prudent to give manufacturers more time to test and certify their
applicable products to the side impact standard to ensure currently
compliant CRSs remain available on the market. This proposal would
still allow for the option of early compliance with the side impact
standard.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Manufacturers who certify their products to the side impact
standard early may be subject to the agency's compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A compliance date of December 5, 2026 would coincide with the
compliance date for many of the requirements of the frontal impact
update standard. The agency believes the extra 15 months should be
sufficient time for manufacturers to complete testing of their products
for compliance with the side impact standard. Additionally, we believe
it would ease the burden on manufacturers to have the frontal impact
update and side impact compliance dates align, as manufacturers would
have one target date for certification. Accordingly, the agency
proposes to delay the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a to
[[Page 23014]]
December 5, 2026. NHTSA seeks comment on this proposal.
IV. Proposed Amendments To Front Impact Requirements (FMVSS Nos. 213
and 213b)
As discussed above, the frontal impact update final rule added a
definition of ``school bus child restraint system.'' NHTSA explained in
the frontal impact update final rule that FMVSS No. 213 has special
accommodations for harnesses manufactured exclusively for use on school
bus seats. These accommodations meet the need that many school
districts and school bus operators have for a product with a seat back
mount to transport children who need help sitting upright and remaining
safely in their seat. The seat back attachment hardware of these
specialized school bus harnesses does not use a seat belt to attach to
the bus seat. This attachment configuration permits use of these
harnesses in the significant population of large school buses that are
without seat belts.
While the agency made several modifications to FMVSS Nos. 213 and
213b to create a new CRS category (school bus CRSs) in the frontal
impact update final rule, the agency did not exempt these CRSs from the
requirements of S5.9(a). This section requires CRS to have components
permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be
fastened to a vehicle's child restraint anchorages. Paragraph S5.9(a)
currently excludes car beds, harness, and belt positioning seat from
having these attachments. The agency did not intend to require lower
anchorage attachments for school bus CRSs as these types of CRSs are
expected to have a seat back mount to install them on the school bus
seat. In other words, school bus CRSs are generally not designed for
installation in other types of motor vehicles, and the agency sees no
reason to require school bus CRSs to meet requirements adopted to
ensure certain CRSs can be installed in other types of motor vehicles.
Additionally, under the new requirements for school bus CRSs in the
frontal impact update standards, school bus CRSs must have a label
explaining that the CRS is for use exclusively in school buses, meaning
the agency thinks there is very little risk a consumer would try to
install a school bus CRS in a motor vehicle. Accordingly, this NPRM
proposes to exclude ``school bus CRSs'' from the S5.9(a) requirements
in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b. The agency also proposes to amend
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b which require a labeling
statement regarding how to secure the CRS to the vehicle. Because the
requirement lists the ``child restraint anchorage system'' or ``vehicle
belt'' as methods to attach the CRS to the vehicle, NHTSA proposes to
add a requirement specific for school bus CRSs that would indicate the
seat back mount in the statement as the method for attaching the CRS to
the vehicle instead of the ``child restraint anchorage system or
vehicle belt'' because those methods are not used when using school bus
CRSs. NHTSA seeks comment on this proposal.
V. Costs and Benefits
Due to the change in compliance date, both benefits and costs,
which are ultimately borne by consumers, associated with meeting the
requirement of FMVSS No. 213a will be delayed. Additionally, there may
be a cost savings associated with avoiding a market disruption as
manufacturers have indicated to the agency that they may have to stop
manufacturing certain CRSs that they cannot certify to the new FMVSS
No. 213a requirements by June 30, 2025.\30\ Delaying the compliance
date would ensure CRS manufacturers can continue to manufacture
currently compliant CRSs while they work to certify compliance with the
new side impact requirements. NHTSA estimates that the cost savings to
consumers resulting from a delay in the compliance date from June 30,
2025 to December 5, 2026 is about $10.58 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The FMVSS No. 213a final regulatory impact analysis (FRIA)
estimates an annual cost of $7.37 million to meet FMVSS No. 213a
requirements. By delaying the compliance date from June 30, 2025 to
December 5, 2026 would result in cost savings to society by $10.58
million. The full analysis on the compliance date delay cost savings
will be docketed along with this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no additional benefits expected from exempting school bus
child restraint systems from side impact protection requirements and
lower anchorages attachment requirements since these products have been
in the market. Similar to the potential delay cost savings discussed
above, exempting school bus CRSs from the side impact requirements may
result in a cost savings for manufacturers, as it is likely that school
bus CRS manufacturers would have to stop manufacturing school bus CRSs
that cannot comply with FMVSS No. 213a by June 30, 2025. Exempting
school bus CRSs from compliance with FMVSS No. 213a would ensure that
school bus CRS manufacturers can continue to manufacture their products
after June 30, 2025.
Removing the requirement to test CRSs in forward facing mode with
the CRABI dummy for side impact protection, would have no benefits but
would reduce yearly testing costs by $1,290,000.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ There are currently 48 convertible CRS models, 60 all-in-
one CRS models and 21 combination CRS models. Each forward-facing
convertible, combination and all-in-one CRS would no longer be
tested using the CRABI-12MO in a forward-facing configuration. The
cost of a side impact sled test is estimated at $5,000. Therefore,
the temporary additional test cost is estimated to be $1,290,000
(129 CRS Models x $5000 x 2 test installation configurations with
CRABI-12MO in forward-facing mode).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, exempting school bus CRSs from compliance with the FMVSS
Nos. 213 and 213b lower anchorage attachment requirements will likely
result in a cost savings for manufacturers. If the agency does not
adopt this amendment, school bus CRSs could comply with FMVSS Nos. 213
and 213b, but would have to be equipped with hardware that would allow
the school bus CRSs to attach to the lower anchors in a motor vehicle
other than a school bus. This would be unnecessary, as school bus CRSs
are not designed for use in other types of motor vehicles.
Additionally, FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b have a requirement that school
bus CRSs must be labeled and inform the consumer that school bus CRSs
are only for use in school buses. Accordingly, the agency believes
there would be some cost savings associated with exempting school bus
CRSs from this unnecessary attachment requirement. Because the agency
does not believe exempting school bus CRSs from this requirement would
affect safety, there are no incremental benefits associated with this
proposal.
Comments are requested on the above cost benefit analysis.
VI. Proposed Effective Date
This NPRM proposes that the amendments would become effective
immediately on the date of publication of any final rule. The
amendments would qualify for the exemption from the 30-day effective
date delay required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because they recognize an
exemption or relieve a restriction.\32\ They would also qualify
[[Page 23015]]
for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. 30111(d) for the same reasons.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The proposed amendments to S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) in FMVSS Nos.
213 and 213b would make changes to certain CRS labeling
requirements. This provision currently requires that a school bus
CRS label state, among other things, that the CRS should be secured
with the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system, if available,
or with a vehicle belt. However, as explained earlier in this
document, a school bus CRS is secured to the vehicle using the CRS's
seat back mount, not with the vehicle's CRS anchorage system or
belt. The proposal would amend this provision to require that the
label on a school bus CRS state ``Secure this school bus child
restraint using the child restraint's seat back mount.'' Therefore,
although this is a requirement, the amendments would facilitate
compliance for school bus CRSs because the current requirements do
not accurately reflect how those CRSs are actually secured to the
vehicle.
\33\ Id. (``The Secretary shall specify the effective date of a
motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter in the
order prescribing the standard. A standard may not become effective
before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or later than
one year after it is prescribed. However, the Secretary may
prescribe a different effective date after finding, for good cause
shown, that a different effective date is in the public interest and
publishing the reasons for the finding'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained earlier, this NPRM would delay the compliance date for
FMVSS No. 213a to December 5, 2026. The compliance date for the
proposed changes to the labeling requirements in S5.5.2(g)(2)(ii) of
FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b would be the same as the effective date in
order to allow CRS manufacturers to take advantage of the more accurate
labeling information the amendments would facilitate. Because the
remainder of the proposed amendments would exempt certain CRSs from
certain requirements, a compliance date is not necessary for those
amendments.
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14192, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rule under Executive Order
12866 and Executive Order 14192. This NPRM is not considered to be
significant, and NHTSA has considered the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule under the principles of these executive orders. Please
refer to Section V, Costs and Benefits, for this discussion. This NPRM,
if finalized as proposed, is also expected to be an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action.
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 rulemaking action would 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. There is no separate NAICS code for child
restraints. Child restraints systems could fit into the ``Motor Vehicle
Seating and Interior Trim'' Category (NAICS 336360), ``All Other Motor
Vehicle Parts Manufacturing'' category (NAICS 336399), or in ``All
Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing'' category (NAICS 336999).
The determination was made based on whether the manufacturer had 500 or
more employees. All the manufacturers that were identified as small
manufacturers already met the requirement and, therefore, the analysis
concluded that there would be no impact on small businesses. Even if
there were a small CRS manufacturer, as explained in the discussion of
costs and benefits, the impacts of this rule will not be significant
and the rule would likely result in cost savings to CRS manufacturers.
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.\34\ It is this statutory command by Congress that
preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law
addressing the same aspect of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' \35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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
NHTSA believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a
reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the
proposed agency action.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), a
[[Page 23016]]
Federal agency must request and receive approval from the Office of
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. This proposed rule would not have any requirements
that are considered to be information collection requirements as
defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 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).
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 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 that 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
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Public Law 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 (ISO) and the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). 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
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in 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 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. The RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 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 rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
Rule Summary
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found at regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0046, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.
Incorporation by Reference
The following materials appear in the proposed amendatory text of
this document and have already been approved for the locations in which
they appear:
Drawing Package SAS-100-1000, Standard Seat Belt Assembly
with Addendum A, Seat Base Weldment;
Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No.
213, No. NHTSA-213-2003''; and
NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-
213-2021, Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS
No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, Child Frontal Impact Sled, March 2023.
No changes are proposed to the IBR material.
VIII. Public Participation
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the agency
name and the docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) in
your
[[Page 23017]]
comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR
553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your
primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach
necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be
submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus
allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in Part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Part 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Part 512.4(b) and Part 512, Appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Part 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].'' You
are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one redacted
``public version'' of the information for which you are seeking
confidential treatment. Pursuant to Part 512.5(a)(2), the redacted
``public version'' should include redactions of any information for
which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the only
information that should be unredacted is information for which you are
not seeking confidential treatment). NHTSA is currently treating
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting
confidential business information to the agency under Part 512. Please
do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to
NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in
the Office of the Chief Counsel at [email protected]. You may
either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer
link. If you are submitting the request via email, please also email a
courtesy copy of the request to John Piazza at [email protected].
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
Proposed Regulatory Text
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Incorporation by reference.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Subpart B--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. Amend Sec. 571.213 by revising paragraphs S5(g), S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii),
and S5.9(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Child restraint systems; Applicable unless a vehicle or
child restraint system is certified to Sec. 571.213b.
* * * * *
S5 Requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds), or for children in a
height range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters, shall meet
the requirements in this standard and the additional side impact
protection requirements in Standard No. 213a (Sec. 571.213a). Excepted
from Standard No. 213a are harnesses, school bus child restraint
systems, and car beds.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(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
[[Page 23018]]
second part of the statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt
does not apply.] [For school bus child restraint systems, the statement
above in this section does not apply. School bus child restraint
systems must use the following statement instead: Secure this school
bus child restraint using the child restraint's seat back mount.]
* * * * *
S5.9 * * *
(a) Each add-on child restraint system other than a car bed,
harness, school bus child restraint system, and belt-positioning seat,
shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable
the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the
child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (Sec.
571.225) and depicted in Drawing Package SAS-100-1000, Standard Seat
Belt Assembly with Addendum A, Seat Base Weldment or in Drawing
Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-
2003'' (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The
components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver. In
the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only
the base is required to have the components.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 571.213a by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraph S3;
0
b. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``school bus
child restraint system'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs S7.1(a) and S9.1(b); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs S9.1(c) and S9.1(d).
The additions, revisions, and deletions read as follows:
Sec. 571.213a; Child restraint systems--Side Impact Protection--
Mandatory applicability beginning December 5, 2026.
* * * * *
S3 Application. This standard applies to add-on child restraint
systems that are either recommended for use by children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) regardless
of height, or by children in a height range that includes heights up to
1100 millimeters regardless of weight, except for car beds, school bus
child restraint systems, and harnesses.
S4 * * *
* * * * *
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) of FMVSS
No. 213b (Sec. 571.213b).
* * * * *
S7 * * *
S7.1 * * *
(a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 5 kilograms but not greater than 13.6 kilograms, or
by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 650 millimeters but not greater than 870
millimeters, is tested with a CRABI 12-month-old test dummy conforming
to 49 CFR part 572 subpart R, provided, however, that the CRABI 12-
month-old dummy is not used to test a forward-facing child restraint
system.
* * * * *
S9.1 * * *
(a) * * *
(b) When testing child restraint systems rear-facing, extend the
dummy's arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm downward
toward the dummy's lower body until the arm contacts a surface of the
child restraint system or the SISA. Ensure that no arm is restrained
from movement in other than the downward direction, by any part of the
system or the belts used to anchor the system to the SISA sliding seat.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 571.213b by revising S5(b)(2), S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), and
S5.9(a) to 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). Excepted from
Standard No. 213a are harnesses, school bus child restraint systems,
and car beds.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(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.] For
school bus child restraint systems, the statement above in this section
does not apply. School bus child restraint systems must use the
following statement instead: Secure this school bus child restraint
using the child restraint system's seat back mount.
* * * * *
S5.9 * * *
(a) Each add-on child restraint system other than a car bed,
harness, school bus child restraint system, and belt-positioning seat,
shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable
the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the
child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (Sec.
571.225) and depicted in NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213,
No. NHTSA-213-2021, Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat
Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2021, Child Frontal Impact Sled,
March 2023 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The components
must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver. In the case
of rear-facing child restraint systems with detachable bases, only the
base is required to have the components.
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and
501.5.
Peter Simshauser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-09750 Filed 5-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P