11626 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. 

2 60 FR 35126, July 6, 1995. 

3 68 FR 37620, June 24, 2003. 

4A 12-year-old is approximately the size of a 5th 

percentile adult female. There are ATDs in 

NHTSA’s regulations representing a 5th percentile 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0176] 

RIN 2127–AL10 (Formerly RIN 2127–AJ44) 

Child Restraint Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

for child restraint systems to expand its 

applicability to child restraints sold for 

children weighing up to 36 kilograms 

(kg) (80 pounds (lb)). This rule also 

amends the standard to incorporate use 

of a Hybrid III 10-year-old child test 

dummy (HIII–10C), weighing 35 kg (78 

lb), in compliance tests of child 

restraints newly subject to the standard. 

In a companion document published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, NHTSA is adding 

specifications and qualification 

requirements for the HIII–10C to our 

regulation for anthropomorphic test 

devices. This rulemaking establishes 

performance and other requirements for 

child restraint systems heretofore not 

regulated by a safety standard, i.e., child 

restraints manufactured for children 

weighing 65 to 80 lb. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 27, 2014. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the standard is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

February 27, 2014. If you wish to 

petition for reconsideration of this rule, 

your petition must be received by April 

12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC, 20590. For information 

on the Privacy Act, see Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices section. 

For access to the docket to read 

background documents or comments 

received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. You may also visit DOT’s 

Docket Management Facility, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 for on-line 

access to the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may call Ms. 

Cristina Echemendia (Telephone: 202– 

366–6345) (Fax: 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre 

Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel 

(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202– 

366–3820). You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

rulemaking originally had the RIN 

2127–AJ44. This final rule has a new 

RIN (AL10) because a September 2011 

final rule on one of the issues of the 

rulemaking was considered to have 

completed action on the previous RIN. 

Petitions for reconsideration of this 

rule: The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Summary of Rulemaking Proposals 

a. August 31, 2005 NPRM 

b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM (2008 SNPRM) 

c. November 24, 2010 SNPRM (2010 

SNPRM) 

III. Overview of Issues Decided in This Final 

Rule 

IV. Agency Decisions 

a. Extend the Applicability of FMVSS No. 

213 

b. Weight Ranges 

c. Performance and Other Criteria 

1. HIII–10C Dummy 

2. HIII–6C Dummy 

d. UMTRI Positioning Procedure 

e. LATCH Issues 

1. The Label 

2. Combined Weight 

3. Account for Weight of CRS 

4. Top Tether 

5. Testing with the HIII–10C 

6. Boosters 

7. Other 

f. Lead Time 

g. Mass Limit 

h. Miscellaneous Issues 

1. Housekeeping 

2. Belt Fit 

3. Shoe Size 

4. Preemption Language 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Introduction 

The dynamic test requirements in 

FMVSS No. 213 comprehensively assess 

the crashworthiness of child restraint 

systems (CRSs) in a rigorous 48 

kilometers per hour (kmph) (30 miles 

per hour (mph)) frontal sled test. The 

assessment uses available 

anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) 

(crash test dummies) representing 

children of different ages. The ATDs are 

regularly assessed, upgraded, replaced 

or supplemented with new ATDs by 

NHTSA, as needed and as new state-ofthe-art test dummies become available. 

Through the history of FMVSS No. 

213, the number and sizes of ATDs used 

to assess CRSs’ compliance with the 

standard has greatly expanded. Child 

occupants of many different ages are 

represented by the ATDs, to provide an 

expansive assessment of the ability of 

CRSs to restrain the children for whom 

the CRS manufacturer has designed the 

restraint. 

The agency began the FMVSS No. 213 

sled test program in 1979 with a 6- 

month-old child (uninstrumented) ATD 

and a three-year-old child 

(instrumented) ATD.1 In 1995, NHTSA 

expanded the test devices by replacing 

the 6-month-old with ATDs 

representing a newborn infant and a 9- 

month-old child, and added a 6-year-old 

child instrumented ATD, the latter to 

test booster seats.2 In 2003, NHTSA 

added an instrumented 12-month-old 

infant ATD to the standard in place of 

the uninstrumented 9-month-old 

dummy, and replaced the 3-year-old 

child and 6-year-old child ATDs with 

their state-of-the-art Hybrid III 

counterparts.3 In that 2003 rulemaking, 

NHTSA expanded the applicability of 

FMVSS No. 213 to CRSs for children 

who weigh up to 65 lb and added a 

weighted Hybrid III 6-year-old child 

ATD to test restraints recommended for 

children in the upper weight range. The 

agency aimed to have an array of ATDs 

representing children at or near the 

extremes of the weight ranges identified 

by a manufacturer as being suitable for 

each type of child restraint. 

In early 2000, NHTSA asked the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Dummy Family Task Group (DFTG) to 

develop a test dummy representative of 

a 10-year-old child. NHTSA had sought 

development of a test dummy between 

the sizes of a 6-year-old and a 12-yearold for several years.4


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11627 

adult female for use in its vehicle frontal and side 

impact programs. (49 CFR part 572, Subparts O and 

V, respectively.) 

5See, the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 

(sections 2500–2509 of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and the 

Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability 

and Documentation (TREAD) Act, respectively. 

6Extensive evaluation of the dummy continued 

through mid-2004. ‘‘Technical Evaluation of the 

Hybrid III Ten Year Old Dummy (HIII–10C),’’ 

Stammen; Vehicle Research and Test Center, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(September 2004). 

7The August 31, 2005 NPRM provides a detailed 

overview of NHTSA’s responses to the child 

restraint provisions of Anton’s Law. See 70 FR at 

51721. 

8This is described in detail in the January 23, 

2008 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 

(SNPRM). 

9The HIII–10C represents children of a size 

heretofore not represented by the ATDs used in 

NHTSA regulations. The child ATDs in 49 CFR part 

572 that NHTSA uses for testing CRSs are ATDs 

representing a newborn infant, a 12-month-old, a 3- 

year-old, a 6-year-old, and a weighted 6-year-old. In 

49 CFR part 572, there is also specified a 5th 

percentile adult female ATD, which is 

approximately the size of a 12-year-old. 

10For readability purposes, this section 

summarizes the more noteworthy rulemaking 

proposals still outstanding, which are resolved by 

this final rule. It does not summarize more minor 

proposals, such as housekeeping amendments, or 

issues that were decided in previously-published 

documents, such as the continued optional use of 

the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy to test CRSs, which 

was discussed in a final rule published under RIN 

2127–AJ44 on September 9, 2011. All outstanding 

proposals, including those not summarized here, 

are discussed in this preamble. 

Legislative Activity 

The agency’s adoption of new ATDs 

into FMVSS No. 213 has long been of 

interest to Congress. The 1995 and 2002 

rulemakings, supra, adding the new 

ATDs began from agency planned 

upgrades to FMVSS No. 213. During the 

course of NHTSA’s development of the 

test dummies, legislative goals mirroring 

agency initiatives to adopt the ATDs 

were enacted.5 NHTSA’s adoption of the 

ATDs in furtherance of agency goals 

also satisfied these legislative goals. 

Legislative activity has likewise 

followed the development of an ATD 

representing a 10-year-old child. In 

2002, NHTSA began evaluating the first 

production prototype of the 10-year-old 

child dummy that DFTG had developed 

in response to NHTSA’s request.6 On 

December 4, 2002, Public Law 107–318, 

116 Stat. 2772 was enacted (Anton’s 

Law), which contained provisions for 

NHTSA to develop and evaluate a test 

dummy that represents a 10-year-old 

child for use in testing child restraints, 

and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding 

for the adoption of the dummy within 

1 year following that evaluation. 

NHTSA moved promptly to fulfill 

Anton’s Law. Activities that would 

satisfy many of the statute’s mandates 

were already underway in NHTSA in 

2002 and subsequently completed by 

NHTSA by 2005. An August 31, 2005 

NPRM (RIN 2127–AJ44) published by 

NHTSA was the final step in fulfilling 

the agency’s obligations under Anton’s 

Law. With that 2005 NPRM and 

previous NHTSA initiatives, NHTSA 

fully met the mandates of the statute.7

Later Developments 

With the 2005 NPRM, the agency had 

high hopes that the HIII–10C would 

enhance FMVSS No. 213 by ensuring 

that booster seats and other CRSs 

recommended for older children would 

be robustly assessed to ensure sound 

performance in a 48 kmph (30 mph) 

crash when used by children at the 

upper limit of their recommended 

weight range, typically up to 80 lb. 

When we published the 2005 proposal 

to include the dummy in FMVSS No. 

213, we proposed that booster seats 

must conform to several new 

requirements based on HIII–10C 

measurements, including a head injury 

criterion (HIC). We demonstrated in our 

pre-proposal testing that while most 

CRSs conformed to the new 

requirements, there were some failures, 

including those where HIC was 

exceeded. However, during extensive 

post-NPRM booster seat testing, 

inconsistencies in the test protocol 

revealed variability in the kinematics 

and measurements of the HIII–10C. In 

particular, the agency discovered that a 

slight perturbation in the test protocol 

could create a large change in HIC. The 

high variability in HIC measurements 

was attributable to a design feature 

unique to the HIII–10C in which chinto-chest contact during the impact event 

can be excessively hard.8

Subsequently, the agency devoted 

substantial rulemaking and research 

efforts to try to address test variability. 

NHTSA investigated the ATD’s chin-tochest contact and developed a seating 

procedure that was proposed in an 

SNPRM published in 2008. Later, after 

analyzing comments opposing the 

SNPRM, NHTSA published a second 

SNPRM in 2010 which proposed a 

different seating procedure, but 

acknowledged that HIC appeared 

unusable as an FMVSS No. 213 injury 

criterion when the HIII–10C was used so 

positioned. Throughout the rulemaking 

proceeding, NHTSA informed the 

public of its research findings, concerns 

and ideas about using the HIII–10C in 

FMVSS No. 213, and in turn learned 

from comments from research 

organizations, consumer groups, CRS, 

vehicle, and ATD manufacturers, and 

others. Considerable effort was devoted 

to revising the test protocol to eliminate 

high variability in HIC. 

The endeavor has led to a new 

dummy positioning procedure that 

improves test repeatability with no 

substantial change to the HIII–10C. The 

agency expended substantial research 

and rulemaking resources in this 

rulemaking. The ATD appeared to be a 

worthwhile test instrument 

notwithstanding its problems in 

measuring HIC. We also wished to 

implement Anton’s Law as fully as 

possible. 

The agency has determined that the 

HIII–10C is an important ATD that will 

enhance our ability to assess the 

performance of CRSs and other 

occupant protection systems in 

protecting children.9 In the 

accompanying 49 CFR part 572 final 

rule published today, we adopt the HIII– 

10C into our regulation for 

anthropomorphic test devices. The HIII– 

10C will provide an enhanced 

assessment of child restraint 

performance and is worthy of adoption 

into FMVSS No. 213. However, due to 

the variability in HIC measures resulting 

from hard chin-to-chest contacts, we 

will not assess HIC as an FMVSS No. 

213 injury criterion when using this 

ATD. 

II. Summary of Rulemaking 

Proposals 10

a. August 31, 2005 NPRM 

On August 31, 2005, NHTSA 

published an NPRM initiating 

rulemaking proposing to amend FMVSS 

No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to 

adopt an instrumented 35 kg (78 lb) 

Hybrid III test dummy representing a 

10-year-old child. 70 FR 51720, August 

31, 2005, Docket No. NHTSA–2005– 

21245 (RIN 2127–AJ44). NHTSA 

proposed to: 

1. Expand the definition of ‘‘child 

restraint system’’ in FMVSS No. 213 to 

include devices designed for use in a 

motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, 

or position children who weigh 80 lb 

(36 kg) or less; 

2. Use the HIII–10C dummy to test 

belt-positioning seats and other child 

restraint systems recommended for 

children weighing more than 50 lb (22.7 

kg); 

3. Incorporate, with the HIII–10C, the 

injury criteria and other performance 

measures specified in FMVSS No. 213 

for evaluating child restraint systems; 

4. Remove a 4.4 kg mass limit for beltpositioning seats (S5.4.3.2 of FMVSS 

No. 213). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

11 Detailed explanation provided in the January 

23, 2008 SNPRM (73 FR at 3904–3905). 

12 In the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, infra, torso 

angle was defined as the angle between the line 

joining the center of gravity of the dummy’s head 

to its H-point and a vertical plane (73 FR 3901, 

3907). 

13SNPRM for FMVSS No. 213, 73 FR 3901, 

Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0048; reopening of 

comment period, 73 FR 15963, March 26, 2008. 

14LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers 

for Children, a term that was developed by industry 

to refer to the child restraint anchorage system 

required to be installed in vehicles (FMVSS No. 

225). FMVSS No. 213 requires harness-equipped 

conventional child safety seats to be able to be 

installed in a vehicle by both a vehicle’s LATCH 

system, and the vehicle’s seat belt. 

b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM (2008 

SNPRM) 

The comments on the August 31, 2005 

NPRM supported extending the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to child 

restraints recommended for children up 

to 80 lb (36 kg), and supported having 

a 10-year-old dummy to test higher 

weight-rated child restraints. However, 

several commenters raised concerns 

about the biofidelity of the HIII–10C 

dummy, particularly with regard to the 

interaction of the dummy’s chin with 

the upper sternal bib region covering the 

upper portion of a metal ‘‘spine box.’’ 

Commenters said that the dummy 

exhibited ‘‘chin-to-chest’’ contacts 

resulting in high HIC scores and high 

HIC variability when tested multiple 

times under the same conditions. 

In response to these comments, the 

agency conducted a series of tests with 

the HIII–10C dummy to investigate the 

factors that influenced chin-to-chest 

contact and the resulting high HIC 

scores and HIC variability. Results 

revealed that dummy posture was the 

primary factor contributing to HIC 

variation observed in testing of beltpositioning seats.11 A more upright 

dummy posture minimized the hard 

chin-to-chest contact, which resulted in 

more repeatable and generally lower 

HIC values. Accordingly, the agency 

developed a new dummy positioning 

procedure which established dummy 

posture (14 degree torso angle 12) and a 

belt positioned at specific landmarks of 

the dummy’s body, and prepared an 

SNPRM to propose the procedure for 

use in FMVSS No. 213. 

On January 23, 2008, the agency 

published the 2008 SNPRM.13 The 

document supplemented the 2005 

NPRM by: 

1. Proposing dummy positioning 

procedures that establish dummy 

posture (14 degree torso angle) and seat 

belt positions based on specific 

landmarks of the dummy’s body. 

NHTSA proposed that the dummy 

positioning procedures would be used 

when using the HIII–10C and the Hybrid 

III 6-year-old child dummy (HIII–6C) to 

test belt-positioning seats. 

2. Changing an earlier proposal 

concerning which CRSs would be tested 

with the HIII–10C test dummy. The 

2008 SNPRM proposed that child 

restraints recommended for children 

weighing 22.7 to 29.5 kg (50 to 65 lb) be 

tested with the HIII–6C dummy for 

performance, and with the weighted 

HIII–6C dummy for structural integrity. 

The HIII–10C dummy would be used to 

test CRSs recommended for children 

weighing more than 29.5 kg (65 lb). 

c. November 24, 2010 SNPRM (2010 

SNPRM) 

The comments received on the 

January 23, 2008 SNPRM strongly 

opposed the 14 degree torso angle 

positioning procedure. Several 

commenters supported the dummy 

positioning procedure developed by the 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI) and urged 

NHTSA to adopt those procedures. 

However, some commenters noted that 

the UMTRI procedure results in 

unrealistically high HIC values 

measured by the dummy due to the 

more slouched positioning of the 

dummy. UMTRI suggested that NHTSA 

not use HIC in the testing of beltpositioning seats with the HIII–10C 

until the biofidelity of the test dummy 

is improved. 

Based on an analysis of the comments 

to the 2008 SNPRM and other 

information, including the results of 

additional testing by NHTSA of beltpositioning seats using the UMTRI 

positioning procedure, NHTSA issued 

the 2010 SNPRM on November 24, 

2010. The document supplemented the 

proposals of the earlier NPRMs by 

proposing to: 

1. Adopt a procedure for positioning 

the HIII–10C dummy in belt-positioning 

seats based on the procedure developed 

by UMTRI, instead of the 14 degree 

torso upright procedure. The UMTRI 

procedure includes specifications for 

positioning the belt-positioning seat on 

the standard seat assembly. The 2010 

SNPRM also proposed using the UMTRI 

procedure when testing with the HIII– 

6C in belt-positioning seats in FMVSS 

No. 213 tests. 

2. Withdraw the proposal for the HIC 

criterion for the HIII–10C dummy, until 

problems with the dummy that resulted 

in uncharacteristically high HIC values 

and HIC variability in FMVSS No. 213 

testing have been resolved. 

3. Specify that a child restraint system 

recommended for children weighing 

over 29.5 kg (65 lb) will not be subject 

to testing with the HIII–10C when 

attached to the standard seat assembly 

using the Lower Anchors and Tethers 

for Children (LATCH) 14 system. These 

CRSs would be tested with the HIII–10C 

while attached to the standard seat 

assembly with the seat belt system. To 

reduce the likelihood that a consumer 

may mistakenly use this type of CRS 

with LATCH, the 2010 SNPRM 

proposed to require harness-equipped 

CRSs recommended for children of a 

weight range that includes children 

weighing over 29.5 kg (65 lb), to be 

labeled with an instruction to the 

consumer not to use the vehicle LATCH 

system with a child weighing more than 

29.5 kg (65 lb). 

Comments Received on November 24, 

2010 SNPRM 

The agency received 14 comments on 

the 2010 SNPRM, from child restraint 

manufacturers, motor vehicle 

manufacturers, child passenger 

advocacy groups, and research 

organizations. Generally, all 

commenters expressly or implicitly 

supported using the UMTRI positioning 

procedure to test the HIII–10C and HIII– 

6C dummies in belt-positioning seats, 

agreeing that the procedure would 

position the ATDs in a more realistic 

seating posture than the 14 degree torso 

angle positioning procedure. JPMA 

asked that NHTSA not use a pelvis 

positioning pad referenced in the 

proposed UMTRI procedure, believing 

that the pad increases the likelihood of 

hard chin-to-chest contact that may 

result in high HIC values and HIC 

variability, and asked several technical 

questions relating to how the UMTRI 

procedure is conducted. Commenters 

expressed support for not adopting HIC, 

although several made clear their view 

that NHTSA should begin measuring 

HIC as soon as possible. 

In commenting on the proposal that 

the HIII–10C dummy would be used to 

test CRSs recommended for children 

weighing more than 29.5 kg (65 lb), 

Britax suggested that the cut-off should 

be 70 lb, so that its CRS that is currently 

recommended for use with children 

weighing more than 65 lb would not be 

tested with the HIII–10C dummy. 

A number of commenters had views 

on the proposed label for harnessequipped CRSs sold for heavier 

children. All agreed that consumers are 

in need of information as to how heavy 

a child could be without potentially 

overloading the LATCH anchors. Most 

commenters on this issue supported a 

label, but several (including JPMA and 

associations of vehicle manufacturers) 

believed that, to avoid overloading the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11629 

LATCH anchors, the maximum child 

occupant weight for LATCH use 

specified on the label should be based 

on the combined weight of the CRS and 

the child occupant, rather than the child 

weight alone. On the other hand, 

Sunshine Kids, a CRS manufacturer, 

suggested that the standard should 

provide CRS manufacturers the ability 

to determine the maximum weight of 

the child the CRS can hold, if the CRS 

manufacturer could provide crash test 

results showing that the CRS with an 

ATD with a maximum recommended 

weight will remain structurally intact 

and will not exceed a 12,000 Newton 

(N) load on the anchors in a 35 mile per 

hour (mph) frontal barrier crash test 

with a 47 g deceleration pulse. 

Some commenters (including 

consumer advocates) supported a 

weight limit only on using the lower 

LATCH anchors, and not the top tether 

anchor. Several commenters (including 

CRS and vehicle manufacturers) 

suggested that the label ought to allow 

CRS manufacturers to state that the 

LATCH anchors could be used to secure 

a belt-positioning booster to the vehicle 

seat, to avoid having the booster become 

a flying projectile in a crash. 

Differences With the 2010 SNPRM 

After reviewing the comments to the 

2010 SNPRM, we have decided to adopt 

the following modifications of its 

proposal: 

Regarding the UMTRI procedure, we 

changed the proposal regarding use of 

the pelvis positioning pad, to only 

prepare the HIII–10C dummy with the 

pad, and not the HIII–6C dummy. The 

lap shield used with the HIII–6C 

dummy and the HIII–10C are the same 

but the dimensions of the drawing of the 

lap shield proposed in the 2010 SNPRM 

are reduced to better fit the child 

dummies. We added steps to the 

procedure preparing the HIII–10C 

dummy to set the dummy’s neck and 

lumbar angle. This setup was proposed 

in the 2008 SNPRM. 

We did not adopt the proposed 

instructions on how to apply the seat 

belt on the dummy during the 

positioning procedure due to an 

oversight with the proposal. The 

proposed instructions were specific to 

continuous belts. FMVSS No. 213 does 

not specify a continuous belt so the 

provisions were not relevant to the 

FMVSS No. 213 belt system. 

Other changes are to the proposed 

requirements for labeling and written 

instructions, with regard to how heavy 

a child can be before LATCH should no 

longer be used to attach a harnessequipped CRS to the vehicle seat. 

These and other changes are 

discussed in this preamble. 

III. Overview of Issues Decided in This 

Final Rule 

Based on our analysis of all available 

information, including comments to the 

2005 NPRM, 2008 SNPRM, and 2010 

SNPRM, this final rule amends FMVSS 

No. 213 in the following manner. 

(a) We extend the applicability of 

FMVSS No. 213 to child restraint 

systems recommended for use by 

children weighing 80 lb or less, from the 

current criterion of 65 lb or less. 

(b) We adopt the following injury 

criteria for the HIII–10C dummy in the 

sled test: chest acceleration = 60 g’s; 

head excursion = 813 mm for 

untethered condition and 720 mm for 

tethered condition; and knee excursion 

= 915 mm. 

(c) This final rule adopts a procedure 

for positioning the HIII–6C and HIII– 

10C dummies in belt-positioning seats 

based on the procedure developed by 

UMTRI but without the use of the pelvis 

positioning pad for the HIII–6C dummy. 

(d) We specify our use of the HIII–10C 

dummy in FMVSS No. 213 compliance 

tests of CRSs recommended for children 

weighing more than 65 lb. We test CRSs 

rated for children weighing 50 to 65 lb 

with the HIII–6C instrumented dummy 

for performance, and with the weighted 

HIII–6C uninstrumented dummy for 

structural integrity. 

(e) This final rule requires a label to 

be placed on a CRS equipped with 

internal harnesses for which the 

combined weight of the CRS and the 

maximum recommended child weight 

for use with the internal harnesses 

exceeds 65 lb. The label informs the 

consumer that the lower anchors may be 

used to attach the CRS to the vehicle 

seat up to a combined child and CRS 

weight of 65 lb when the child is 

restrained by the internal harnesses. The 

purpose of the label is to reduce 

consumer confusion about using lower 

LATCH anchorages, and to ensure that 

forces generated by the child and CRS 

in most crash conditions do not exceed 

the lower anchors’ design limits. This 

final rule also specifies that in a 

compliance test, NHTSA will not attach 

harness-equipped CRSs to the standard 

seat assembly using the lower 

anchorages of the LATCH system, when 

the test involves an ATD whose weight 

is greater than the manufacturerrecommended maximum child weight 

for lower LATCH anchor use. 

(f) Other issues. This final rule also 

amends FMVSS No. 213 to: delete the 

mass limit of 4.4 kg for belt-positioning 

boosters (S5.4.3.2); make housekeeping 

amendments (e.g., remove reference to a 

9-month-old child ATD since it is no 

longer used in compliance tests); 

address views expressed on possible 

future belt fit requirements, and provide 

a lead time of two years. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

proposals underlying this final rule, the 

provisions they contained and how they 

progressed. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

IV. Agency Decisions 

a. Extend the Applicability of FMVSS 

No. 213 

There has been considerable interest 

over the years in expanding the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to 

increase the likelihood that CRSs that 

are recommended for older children 

will perform adequately in a crash. This 

interest goes hand-in-hand with efforts 

to increase CRS use among older 

children who cannot adequately fit a 

vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt system. 

The goal of expanding the applicability 

of FMVSS No. 213 is to ensure that 

CRSs that are recommended for children 

over the current 65 lb weight limit of the 

standard meet the dynamic test 

requirements of the standard. 

In the TREAD Act final rule (supra), 

the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 was 

expanded to child restraint systems for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11631 

15Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on 

CDS and State Data, NHTSA, DOT HS811338, July 

2010. 

16Arbogast, K. B., Jermakian, J. S., Kellan, M.J., 

Durbin, D. R., Effectiveness of Belt-Positioning 

Booster Seats: An Updated Assessment, Pediatrics, 

Vol. 124, pp. 1281–1286, 2009. 

17Moderate injuries are of severity level 2 in the 

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). 

18As used in FMVSS No. 213, the HIII–10C will 

also measure head and knee excursions and chest 

accelerations, providing a meaningful assessment of 

injury risk. 

19Britax Marathon, Boulevard and Advocate 

convertible seats. 

children who weigh up to 65 lb. The 

agency also specified the use of the 

weighted 6-year-old (62-lb) test dummy 

to test restraints recommended for 

children weighing 50 to 65 lb. In the 

TREAD Act final rule, the agency 

considered the merits of extending the 

standard to restraints recommended for 

use by children weighing up to 80 lb, 

but decided against that expansion 

because there was not then any test 

dummy that could adequately assess the 

dynamic performance of a child 

restraint in restraining an 80 lb child. 

NHTSA believed that expanding the 

standard to restraints for children 

weighing up to 80 lb would not be 

meaningful in the absence of a dummy 

of suitable size and weight that could 

assess the conformance of the restraints 

with the performance requirements of 

the standard. 

The HIII–10C is now available for 

incorporation into FMVSS No. 213. The 

agency has evaluated the test dummy, 

and is satisfied that the dummy’s 

performance merits its use in FMVSS 

No. 213 compliance tests, subject to the 

condition that HIC will not be a 

performance criterion in FMVSS No. 

213 when this ATD is used. In a 

separate final rule published today, we 

are amending 49 CFR part 572, 

‘‘Anthropomorphic test devices,’’ to 

adopt the HIII–10C into subpart T. 

This final rule enhances child 

passenger safety by way of the 

requirements discussed below. It should 

be noted, however, that data indicate 

that booster seats are generally very 

effective items of equipment. Analyses 

of NHTSA’s crash databases 15 and 

insurance claims databases 16 indicate 

that use of belt-positioning seats by 4- 

to 8-year-old children reduces the risk 

of moderate 17 and greater severity 

injuries by 45 percent compared to 

when only seat belts are used. 

Further, we do not expect this rule to 

increase costs noticeably because all 

CRSs that we tested with the HIII–10C 

dummy met the FMVSS No. 213 

performance requirements adopted 

today. (Labeling of the CRSs will be 

revised pursuant to this rule, involving 

minimal costs.) Yet, by requiring that all 

future CRSs recommended for children 

weighing more than 65 lb will be tested 

with the 10-year-old child dummy, this 

rule will ensure that the satisfactory 

performance of current CRSs for older 

children will be maintained. 

Comments; Agency Decision 

All commenters to the NPRMs 

supported extending the applicability of 

FMVSS No. 213 to child restraints 

recommended for children up to 80 lb, 

and supported having a 10-year-old 

dummy to test higher-weight rated child 

restraints. With regard to the Hybrid III 

10-year-old dummy, the concerns about 

the HIII–10C dummy’s measurement of 

HIC are addressed by the next section 

below in this preamble. 

In response to the 2005 NPRM, Public 

Citizen (PC) requested that NHTSA 

reevaluate its weight limits for booster 

seats to make sure all children are 

adequately protected in motor vehicles 

because the average 10-year-old today 

weighs more than 80 pounds and the 

weight of children is steadily increasing. 

PC also suggested that the 10-year-old 

dummy should be up-weighted to more 

closely match the mean weight of 

children today. It stated that the 

agency’s proposed increase for 

recommended restraints does not 

accurately reflect the increased weight 

of children who will need to use the 

booster seats. 

We disagree with PC that the HIII–10C 

is unrepresentative and should be upweighted. The HIII–10C dummy, with a 

weight of 77.6 lb (35 kg), a seated height 

of 29 inches (in) (74 cm), and a standing 

height of 51 in (130 cm), is ideally 

suited to test the upper load and height 

limits of safety restraints for nearly all 

9-year-old and more than half of 10- 

year-old children. The agency notes that 

weight and seated height are the most 

relevant parameters for child occupant 

injury assessment purposes. Weight 

relates to the structural integrity of the 

CRS and belt restraints. Seated height 

establishes the location and fit of the 

seat belts on the shoulder and on the 

torso as well as head trajectory and its 

forward displacement during the sled 

test. Being slightly above the average, 

the mass of the HIII–10C dummy is 

sufficiently suitable for testing the 

structural integrity of CRSs and assures 

their durability for use by children in 

the 6- to 10-year-old age range. 

We conclude that the weight and 

seated height of the HIII–10C are wellchosen for testing CRSs rated up to 80 

lb. The ATD’s anthropometry fits and is 

centered on the mid distribution range 

of physical dimensions of an average 10- 

year-old identified in the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

2000 growth charts. Its weight and 

seated height are well suited to address 

the structural integrity and the belt fit of 

booster seats, respectively, being offered 

in the market place for those size 

children.18 The HIII–10C successfully 

fills the gap between a 6-year-old and a 

12-year-old child, and warrants 

incorporation into FMVSS No. 213. 

Further discussion can be found in the 

49 CFR part 572 final rule published 

concurrently with this document. 

The incorporation of the HIII–10C 

dummy will now allow testing of CRSs 

and belt-positioning seats for children 

weighing more than 65 lb and up to 80 

lb, which is a growing segment of the 

CRS market that currently is not 

undergoing compliance testing for 

performance at the maximum 

recommended weight limit. 

Incorporating the ATD fulfills NHTSA’s 

plan to have an ATD representing 

children between the size of a 6-year-old 

and a 12-year-old, and is as Anton’s Law 

envisioned. Adopting the HIII–10C 

makes the regulation of CRSs for 

children up to 80 lb meaningful, as the 

performance of the CRSs to protect 

larger children will now be dynamically 

tested in a rigorous sled test with an 

ATD better representative of children 

for whom the CRS is recommended than 

current ATDs in FMVSS No. 213. 

b. Weight Ranges 

Originally, the 2005 NPRM proposed 

the HIII–10C be used to test CRSs for 

children over 50 lb. In its comment to 

that NPRM, Britax suggested that, due to 

the size of the HIII–10C, the HIII–10C 

dummy should be used for CRSs 

recommended for children weighing 

more than 65 lb instead of 50 lb. 

NHTSA agreed, and in the 2008 SNPRM 

proposed the use of the HIII–10C to test 

CRSs recommended for use by children 

weighing more than 65 lb and the use 

of the HIII–6C dummy and the weighted 

HIII–6C dummy to assess the 

compliance of CRSs recommended for 

children in the 50 to 65 lb weight range. 

Comments 

In its comment on the 2010 SNPRM, 

Britax requested that the 65 lb cut-off be 

increased to 70 lb, so that only CRSs 

recommended for children weighing 70 

lb or more would be tested with the 

HIII–10C. Britax stated that it produces 

convertible 19 CRSs recommended for 

children weighing 5 to 70 lb. The 

commenter stated that the HIII–10C 

weighs 8 lb more than the 

recommended weight range of the CRS 

and does not fit properly in the 

restraint. Britax stated that the proposed 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

20 ISTEA final rule, 60 FR 35126, July 6, 1995. 

21The agency does not have the resources to add 

an intermediate dummy (e.g., a 70 lb ATD) to 

further accommodate Britax on this issue, to permit 

them to recommend their CRS for children 

weighting up to 70 lb without being subject to 

testing with the HIII–10 C (78 lb) dummy. 

22http://www.nhtsa.gov/ChildSafety/step3 The 

Web site (last accessed Sep. 6, 2011) states, ‘‘Keep 

your 4 to 7 year old children in their FORWARDFACING car seat with a harness until they the top 

height or weight limit allowed by your car seat’s 

manufacturer.’’ 

requirement would result in the removal 

of such convertible CRSs from the 

market. Increasing the standard’s weight 

cut-off to 70 lb, as Britax suggested, 

would result in this CRS not being 

tested with the HIII–10C dummy. 

Agency Response 

We are declining Britax’s request. We 

believe that CRSs recommended for 

children weighing 65 lb or more should 

be tested with the HIII–10C. If the 

standard’s criterion were 70 lb, child 

restraints rated for children up to 70 lb 

would only be tested at the upper 

weight range with an instrumented test 

dummy weighing just 51 lb (the HIII 6- 

year-old). This would create a large gap 

in testing the CRS to its performance 

using an ATD. The agency seeks to limit 

large gaps in FMVSS No. 213 testing to 

the extent possible. 

In the past, problems arose when the 

gap was too large. When FMVSS No. 

213 first adopted dynamic test 

requirements, two child test dummies 

were used in the test. (44 FR 72131; 

December 13, 1979.) One represented a 

6-month-old child, the other a 3-yearold child. Due to the unavailability of 

other ATDs, the standard was written 

such that CRSs recommended for 

children weighing 0 to 20 lb were tested 

with the 6-month-old ATD, and CRSs 

recommended for children 20 to 50 lb 

were tested with the 3-year-old ATD 

(weighing 33 lb). 

Alarmingly, CRSs (shield-type 

boosters) recommended for children 

weighing 20 to 70 lb were subsequently 

produced under that scenario. 

Manufacturers were recommending the 

CRSs for a wide range of children (20 to 

70 lb), but were only required by 

FMVSS No. 213 to test them with just 

a 3-year-old (33 lb) dummy. Concerned 

about the ability of CRSs to restrain 

children in such a large weight/size 

range, NHTSA conducted tests on 

shield-type booster seats using newlydeveloped ATDs representing a 9- 

month-old (20 lb) child and a 6-year-old 

child (48 lb). 

The test results confirmed that the 

assessment of performance under thenFMVSS No. 213 needed to be expanded. 

In some tests, the CRS ejected the 9- 

month-old (20 lb) dummy, or 

structurally failed or yielded excessive 

head excursions in tests with the 6-yearold (48 lb) dummy. These CRSs—all 

recommended for children 20 to 70 lb— 

were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 

213. The problem was that the standard 

only required testing of the restraint 

with the 3-year-old (33 lb) test dummy. 

The standard was not assessing the 

CRSs at the extremes of the 

recommended weight ranges.20

As FMVSS No. 213 evolved and more 

ATDs became available for testing, we 

adopted more ATDs. To the extent 

possible, we try to ensure that there are 

no large gaps in FMVSS No. 213 testing 

of CRSs, particularly at the extremes of 

recommended weight ranges. 

In the 1995 ISTEA rulemaking adding 

ATDs to FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA 

decided that CRSs for children weighing 

more than 40 lb would be tested with 

a 6-year-old (48 lb) dummy. Id. In a 

petition for reconsideration of the final 

rule, a CRS manufacturer asked that the 

weight cut-off be 43 lb instead of 40 lb, 

so that its CRSs rated for children up to 

43 lb would continue to be tested just 

with the 3-year-old (33 lb) dummy, 

rather than with the 6-year-old (48 lb) 

dummy. In a June 18, 1996, final rule 

responding to the petition, NHTSA 

disagreed and kept the cut-off at 40 lb, 

believing that use of the 6-year-old 

dummy, weighing 48 pounds, would 

result in a more rigorous and better 

assessment of the CRS in protecting 

children for whom the CRS was 

recommended than a test with a 3-yearold dummy that weighs only 33 lb. (61 

FR 30824.) That is, if a CRS were 

recommended for children up to 43 lb, 

it should be tested with the 6-year-old 

(48 lb) dummy as that ATD better 

represents the children for whom the 

CRS is recommended at the upper 

recommended weight range, than the 3- 

year-old dummy. Later, the CRS 

manufacturer adjusted its CRS’s weight 

cut-off from 43 lb to 40 lb. 

We recognize that competing interests 

have to be balanced in deciding this 

topic. On the one hand is the interest in 

having children restrained as long as 

possible in a restraint mode (e.g., rearfacing, harness-restraint, or beltpositioning seat) rather than being 

prematurely graduated to the CRS for 

children in the next older age group. On 

the other hand, there is a need to assure 

that CRSs are reasonably sled tested and 

are structurally sound to ensure that 

they protect the children for whom the 

restraint is recommended, as advertised. 

Our increasing the cut-off over which 

the HIII–10C would be used, from 50 lb 

as originally proposed to 65 lb in this 

final rule, achieves a balance. It will 

accommodate the majority of CRS 

manufacturers.21 It is possible that 

manufacturers that lower the CRS 

recommended weight cut-off to 65 lb 

from some higher weight could redirect 

a small segment of children to move to 

a belt-positioning sooner. However, 

CRSs recommended for children 

weighing up to 65 lb would 

accommodate all 6-year-old children 

and up to 93 percent of 7-year-old 

children. This covers the large majority 

of children whom the agency 

recommends be restrained in child 

restraints with harnesses until they 

exceed the recommended height and 

weight limit.22 If the weight cut-off were 

70 lb, the nearly 20-lb gap between the 

weight of the instrumented ATD (50 lb, 

6-year-old child test dummy) used to 

test the Britax CRS and the upper limit 

of the Britax CRS (70 lb) would be too 

large for NHTSA to conclude that the 

performance of the CRS in protecting a 

child weighing just under 70 lb was 

adequately assessed. 

In the 1996 rulemaking (61 FR 30824), 

we recognized that there was a risk that, 

as a result of the decision to keep the 

weight cut-off at 40 lb, CRS 

manufacturers might revise the 

recommended upper weight limit for 

their convertible CRSs from 43 lb to 40 

lb. The negative implication of this was 

that parents may transition their 

children out of toddler restraints to 

booster seats or a vehicle belt system 

sooner than when the child is more 

physically developed. Yet, the agency 

was also hopeful that, in time, 

manufacturers could develop designs 

that would enable a harness-equipped 

CRS to meet the performance 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213 when 

tested with the 6-year-old child dummy, 

thereby allowing the manufacturers to 

recommend their CRSs for children 

weighing more than 40 lb (resulting in 

children being kept in the harnessedequipped CRS until they are older). 

Following the rulemaking, we have 

found first the former, then the latter, 

was realized. CRS labels were initially 

revised such that convertible (harnessequipped) restraints were recommended 

for children only up to 40 lb. Later, 

newer designs emerged of convertible 

restraints with upper weight limits up to 

50 lb or 65 lb. The newer CRSs have 

been designed to meet FMVSS No. 213 

when tested with the 6-year-old ATD. 

We do not believe that this decision 

will have negative safety consequences 

of any note. Manufacturers of CRSs such 

as the one Britax described could revise 

the weight cut-off downward to 65 lb so 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11633 

23NHTSA focused on booster seats in the NPRM 

because in 2005 CRSs for children weighing 65 to 

80 lb were primarily booster seats. 

as to avoid being tested with the HIII– 

10C, rather than completely removing 

the CRS from the market. If a harnessed 

CRS is needed for children weighing 

above 65 lb, experience has shown that 

CRS manufacturers could fill that need. 

We are optimistic that manufacturers 

that see a need will be able to redesign 

their harness-equipped CRSs such that 

the CRS would be able to meet FMVSS 

No. 213 when tested with the HIII–10C 

dummy. 

This decision to make the cut-off 65 

lb will benefit safety by better ensuring 

that CRS recommended for use with 

children weighing more than 65 lb will 

be dynamically assessed with an ATD 

that represents the older children for 

whom the CRS is recommended. 

Accordingly, the proposed weight 

categories are adopted. 

The final rule’s weight categories are 

illustrated in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—FINAL RULE WEIGHT CATEGORIES

CRS Recommended for use by children of these sizes— Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs 

(Subparts refer to 49 CFR part 572) 

Weight not greater than 5 kg (0 to 11 lb), or height not greater than 

650 mm.

Newborn (subpart K). 

Weight greater than 5 but not greater than 10 kg (11 to 22 lb) or height 

greater than 650 mm but not greater than 850 mm.

Newborn (subpart K), CRABI (subpart R). 

Weight greater than 10 kg but not greater than 18 kg (22 to 40 lb), or 

height greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm.

CRABI (subpart R), HIII 3-year-old (subpart P). 

Weight greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb), 

or height greater than 1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm.

HIII 6-year-old (subpart N) or HII 6-year-old (subpart I) (manufacturer’s 

option). 

Weight greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not greater than 30 kg (65 lb), 

or greater than 1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm.

HIII 6-year-old (subpart N) or HII 6-year-old (subpart I) (manufacturer’s 

option), and weighted HIII 6-year-old (subpart S). 

Weight greater than 30 kg (65 lb), or height greater than 1250 mm ...... HIII 10-year-old (subpart T).* 

* No HIC measured with HIII–10C. 

c. Performance and Other Criteria 

1. HIII–10C Dummy 

The 2005 NPRM proposed 

performance criteria for the HIII–10- 

year-old dummy similar to the current 

FMVSS No. 213 criteria, because the 

agency was not aware of any injuries 

unique to children in booster seats 23

that would necessitate separate and 

differing injury criteria limits. The 

specific injury criteria measurement 

maximums for the HIII–10-year old 

dummy were: HIC36 = 1000; chest 

acceleration = 60 g’s (3 millisecond 

clip); head excursion = 813 millimeters 

(mm) for untethered condition, 720 mm 

for tethered condition (if applicable); 

and knee excursion = 915 mm. We also 

proposed applying other FMVSS No. 

213 requirements to CRSs rated for 

children who weigh up to 80 lb, 

including structural integrity, force 

distribution, installation, child restraint 

webbing and belt assembly 

requirements, and flammability 

requirements. (The agency also 

proposed to eliminate S5.4.3.2’s limit on 

the mass of belt-positioning boosters. 

This provision will be discussed later in 

this preamble.) 

The 2008 and 2010 SNPRMs added to 

or superseded some of the 2005 NPRM 

proposals on performance criteria. In 

response to comments to the 2005 

NPRM pointing out high HIC values and 

HIC variability related to hard chin-tochest contact in FMVSS No. 213 testing 

with the HIII–10C dummy, the 2010 

SNPRM proposed not to adopt the HIC 

criterion for tests conducted with the 

HIII–10C dummy in all CRSs. Correcting 

an oversight, the 2008 NPRM proposed 

to amend S5.2.1.2 of FMVSS No. 213 to 

specify that the HIII–10C would not be 

used to determine the applicability of 

the head support surface requirements 

of S5.2.1.1. Also in response to 

comments, the 2010 SNPRM proposed 

to exclude CRSs tested with the HIII– 

10C from a requirement that the CRS 

must meet the requirements of FMVSS 

No. 213 when installed by means of the 

lower anchorags of a LATCH system. 

Comments 

In general, the commenters supported 

the proposal not to adopt HIC when 

using the HIII–10C. UMTRI, Consumers 

Union (CU), Evenflo and JPMA 

concurred with not using HIC until the 

uncharacteristically hard chin-to-chest 

contact in the dummy has been 

corrected. JPMA agreed with applying 

existing FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria 

and dynamic performance measures for 

the HIII–10C dummy except for the HIC. 

Advocates for Highway Safety 

(Advocates), the American Academy of 

Pediatrics (AAP) and SafeRideNews also 

concurred with not using HIC but 

requested that NHTSA expedite 

improving the dummy’s biofidelity to 

incorporate HIC into the injury 

requirements. Advocates and 

SafeRideNews also requested that 

NHTSA include a HIC incorporation 

date in the final rule. Advocates 

believed that, without the 

implementation of HIC, quantification 

of the risk of head injury to children in 

belt-positioning seats will be limited to 

head excursion which, the commenter 

believed, provides only a ‘‘rudimentary 

surrogate’’ measure of contact and noncontact head injuries. 

In supporting the proposal, UMTRI 

believed that NHTSA’s injury data 

analysis cited in the SNPRM did not 

identify a significant injury problem 

that could be addressed by the inclusion 

of HIC in an FMVSS No. 213 booster 

seat test, regardless of the biofidelity of 

the dummy. It suggested that efforts to 

reduce the number of head injuries in 

the field should focus on reducing head 

excursion rather than reducing the 

linear head acceleration used to 

calculate HIC. 

CU stated its belief that NHTSA’s not 

adopting HIC at this point is warranted 

when testing with the HIII–10C. CU 

stated that it too concluded that the HIC 

values obtained from its sled tests 

(which are similar to FMVSS No. 213) 

could not be used, due in part to the 

potential variability of the data. CU 

believed that not adopting HIC is ‘‘far 

preferable to suspending the use of the 

higher weight dummies altogether, as 

those dummies serve a key purpose in 

evaluating other potential injury criteria 

and structural integrity of seats 

recommended for higher weight 

children.’’ 

Agency Response 

HIC 

For the reasons explained in the 2010 

SNPRM, this final rule does not adopt 

the use of HIC as an injury measure for 

the HIII–10C dummy in FMVSS No. 213 

tests at this time. CRSs tested with the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11634 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

24AIS 2+ injuries are those of moderate or greater 

severity according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 

(AIS); AIS 2+ include injury severity levels: 2— 

moderate, 3—serious, 4—severe, 5—critical, 6— 

unsurvivable. 

25 Klinich, K.D., Reed, M.P., Ritchie, N.L., 

Manary, M.A., Schneider, L.W., Rupp, J.D., 

‘‘Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II: Effect of 

Restraint Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, 

Seating Procedure, and Belt Fit on the Dynamic 

Response of the Hybrid III 10 YO ATD in Sled 

Tests,’’ September 2008, UMTRI–2008–49–2. 

26The near-term Phase I upgrades to the HIII–6C 

and the HIII–10C dummies that are expected to be 

completed in the 2013 timeframe include 

improvements in the biofidelity of the dummy 

kinematics. The Phase II research is directed toward 

developing biomechanical response data for 

developing future improved child dummies. The 

Phase III of this research includes design, 

development, and evaluation of a new prototype 3, 

6 and 10-year-old child dummies which is expected 

to be completed in the 2015 timeframe. 

current HIII–10C ATD can produce HIC 

values in the ATD indicating an 

unacceptable risk of head injury, even 

though head injuries due to chin-tochest contact are not occurring in the 

real world. 

NHTSA analyzed the National 

Automotive Sampling System (NASS) 

Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) 

data files for the years 1999 to 2008 to 

better understand real world injuries 

among children in different restraint 

conditions. The risk and source of 

injury to different body regions was also 

determined. The sampled data consisted 

of children, 5–12 years of age, in rear 

seats of light passenger vehicles that 

were involved in non-rollover frontal 

towaway crashes. Weighting factors in 

NASS/CDS were applied to the sample 

data to represent national estimates of 

towaway crashes. The weighted data 

consisted of 910,308 (1940 unweighted 

sample) children of which 49 percent 

were 5–7 year olds and 51 percent were 

8–12 year olds. Among the 5–7 year 

olds, 69 percent were using vehicle seat 

belts, 22 percent were in harness CRS or 

belt-positioning seat, and 9 percent were 

unrestrained. Among the 8–12 year olds, 

90 percent were using the vehicle belts, 

1 percent was in harness CRS or beltpositioning seat, and 9 percent were 

unrestrained. 

The risk of AIS 2+ injury24 for 

children 5–7 years old was 5.2 percent 

for unbelted children, 1.2 percent for 

belted children and 0.9 percent for 

children in CRSs. The AIS2+ injury risk 

for children 8–12 years old was 8.1 

percent for unbelted children and 1.3 

percent for belted children. There were 

no cases of children 8–12 years old in 

CRSs. Both age groups showed a 

decrease of injury risk when using 

restraints (belt or CRS). 

The most common AIS 2+ injuries 

among children restrained (vehicle seat 

belt or CRS) in rear seats were to the 

head and face (48 percent), followed by 

upper extremities (19 percent), torso (17 

percent) and lower extremities (16 

percent). The most-common known 

contacts for AIS2+ head injuries to 5–12 

year old children restrained by vehicle 

seat belts or CRS (including beltpositioning seat) was the seat back (50 

percent). There was only one case in 

this sample of restrained children where 

an AIS 2+ head injury occurred due to 

self-contact. Further examination of this 

particular case indicated that it involved 

a 7 year-old child restrained with a 

vehicle seat belt. The child’s head 

contacted his/her knee resulting in an 

AIS 2-severity concussion. 

The results of this real-world data 

analysis indicate that the injury risk is 

substantially reduced when the child is 

restrained by vehicle seat belts or in 

child restraints. The results show that 

most head injuries in restrained 

children are caused by contact with the 

seat back. Only one head injury case 

was associated with self contact (head 

contact with knee) but no cases were 

reported where there was chin-to-chest 

contact that resulted in a head injury. 

These data indicate that the high HIC 

values measured by the HIII–10C 

dummy in laboratory sled tests due to 

chin-to-chest contact are not replicating 

a real world injury mechanism. 

Children are not being injured by chinto-chest contact. 

Another reason we have decided not 

to use HIC as a criterion when using the 

HIII–10C dummy to test belt-positioning 

seats is UMTRI’s information 

demonstrating that HIC can be reduced 

by poor shoulder belt placement.25

UMTRI found in sled tests that when 

the shoulder belt slips off the HIII–10C 

dummy shoulder, the chin-to-chest 

contact did not occur because the 

dummy rolls out of the shoulder belt 

and moves forward. As a result, the HIC 

value was low but head excursion 

increased as the dummy’s upper torso 

was not restrained by the shoulder belt. 

Although head excursion increased in 

situations where the shoulder belt 

slipped off the dummy, the values were 

still substantially within compliance 

limits, therefore giving a ‘‘passing’’ 

value to the belt-positioning seat. These 

data demonstrated that using HIC as an 

injury measure may encourage poor belt 

routing designs that place the shoulder 

belt more outboard, which could allow 

the dummy to roll out of the belt in a 

sled test. 

NHTSA will focus efforts to adopt a 

head injury criterion as soon as 

possible. However, we will not set a 

date by which the HIC requirement will 

be adopted, as Advocates suggested. As 

noted in the 2010 SNPRM and earlier in 

this document, the agency has research 

projects underway to improve the 

capability of child dummies to assess 

CRS performance.26 After the agency 

evaluates these improvements in the 

HIII–10C dummy, they will be 

considered for incorporation into 

FMVSS No. 213 and part 572. At the 

time that the current dummy biofidelity 

concerns are addressed, the agency will 

consider adopting HIC in the agency’s 

compliance tests. A termination date in 

the standard would cause confusion, as 

HIC would not be adopted into the 

standard without a rulemaking 

proceeding providing notice of and an 

opportunity to comment on the 

adoption of the improved ATD and HIC. 

The agency is not adopting the 

Alliance’s recommendation to limit the 

HIC calculation to periods prior to chinto-chest contact. We do not agree that 

the timing of chin-to-chest contact can 

be determined by the calculation of 

external forces applied to the head. We 

examined such an approach in detail in 

our research tests and found it difficult 

to determine the time of chin-to-chest 

contact in a definitive manner. 

SafeRideNews inquired why HIC 

would not be adopted in tests of the 

HIII–10C in harnessed CRSs, when the 

problematic dummy readings occurred 

with the dummy in belt-positioning 

boosters. In response, the agency did not 

conduct an evaluation of the HIII–10C 

dummy in harness-equipped CRSs due 

to unavailability of harness-equipped 

CRSs rated for children weighing more 

than 65 pounds at the time of testing. 

However, the agency believes that there 

is a likelihood of uncharacteristically 

hard chin-to-chest contact using the 

HIII–10C in CRSs with harnesses. In 

tests with the HIII–10C dummy 

restrained in a CRS with a harness, the 

dummy’s chest is restrained by the 

harness, letting the head move and 

rotate forward in a similar manner as 

when it is tested restrained in a beltpositioning seat. Accordingly, we are 

not adopting HIC for tests of the HIII– 

10C in all CRSs. 

With this decision, other problems the 

commenters raised concerning the HIC 

measurement in FMVSS No. 213 are 

moot. 

Excursion 

For the reasons provided in the 

notices of proposed rulemaking, we 

have adopted the proposal to measure 

head and knee excursions. Measuring 

the ATD’s head excursion is an 

appropriate metric for evaluating beltpositioning seat performance. We 

believe that the HIII–10C exhibits good 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11635 

27Ash, JH, Sherwood, CP, Abdelilah, Y, Crandall, 

JR, Parent, DP, Kallieris, D., ‘‘Comparison of 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with a Pediatric 

Cadaver Restrained by a Three-point Belt in Frontal 

Sled Tests,’’ Proceedings of the 21st ESV 

Conference, June 2009. 

28Stammen, J., Sullivan, L., NHTSA Vehicle 

Research and Test Center, ‘‘Development of a 

Hybrid III 6 Yr. Old and 10 Yr. Old Dummy Seating 

Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,’’ January 2008, 

Docket NHTSA–2007–0048. 

29The representativeness of the seat assembly and 

excursion limit were examined by NHTSA in the 

rulemaking responding to the TREAD Act. 68 FR 

37620. 

30See, NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy 

Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011—2013, 

March 2011, Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0108–0032. 

31The concept of ‘‘ride down’’ can be understood 

in baseball terms. When you move your hand 

rearward while catching a baseball, you are ‘‘riding 

down’’ the force from the ball and do not feel any 

pain due to the impact of the ball on your hand. 

Continued 

biofidelity for measuring head and knee 

excursion and that measuring a CRS’s 

ability to limit excursions and chest 

acceleration provides a meaningful 

assessment of the protective capabilities 

of the CRS. 

As discussed in the 2010 SNPRM (75 

FR at 71655), in 2008, Ash et al.27

published results of a study comparing 

the responses of a pediatric cadaver 

restrained by a three-point belt with that 

of a HIII–10C dummy in frontal sled 

tests. The cadaver sled test was 

replicated using the HIII–10C dummy, 

and the kinematics of the dummy and 

cadaver were compared, along with the 

accelerations of the head, shoulder and 

lap belt loads of the cadaver and 

dummy. (Due to anthropometric and 

age-equivalent differences between the 

cadaver and the dummy, geometric 

scaling was performed on the signals 

based on the seated height and material 

properties.) 

The study showed similarities in the 

shoulder belt and lap belt forces and 

head excursions of HIII–10C and the 

scaled pediatric cadaver. The head 

excursions between the ATD and the 

scaled cadaver were similar, although 

there were differences in how the head 

reached its maximum excursion point. 

The T1 vertebra (base of the neck) of the 

cadaver had greater forward travel than 

that of the dummy while the dummy 

experienced greater rotation at the base 

of the neck than the cadaver. These 

differences in kinematics were 

attributed to the rigid thoracic spine of 

the dummy, along with extensive 

bending at the cervical and thoracic 

spine junction. The greater neck rotation 

at the base of the neck of the dummy 

compared to the cadaver led to greater 

angular velocity of the head. This 

greater head velocity, coupled with the 

stiff chin-to-chest interaction reported 

by NHTSA,28 resulted in significantly 

higher HIC values for the dummy than 

that expected based on field injury risk. 

Limiting head excursion will provide 

protection to the child occupant. We 

strongly disagree with Advocates that a 

head excursion limit is only a 

‘‘rudimentary’’ surrogate measure of 

contact and non-contact head injuries. 

As discussed above, most head injuries 

to 8- to 12-year-old children are contact 

injuries and are due to impact with the 

vehicle interior. Also discussed above 

was the similarity between the shoulder 

belt and lap belt forces and head 

excursions of the HIII–10C and a scaled 

pediatric cadaver. Therefore, we believe 

a limit on the excursion of the HIII–10C 

dummy’s head in FMVSS No. 213 sled 

tests will mitigate the risk of head 

contact with interior surfaces in frontal 

crashes, and thereby result in reduced 

risk of head injury to heavier children 

restrained in CRSs. For that reason also, 

the agency disagrees with JPMA’s 

position that the HIII–10C dummy is 

only appropriate for evaluating the 

structural integrity of the CRS. 

IIHS asked whether the head 

excursion limits are adequate to prevent 

children’s heads from striking forward 

structures, especially in the prevention 

of children sitting in back seats from 

striking front seats. CHOP 

recommended that NHTSA consider the 

head excursions of the HIII–10C as a 

minimum estimate of the true head 

excursion. 

In response, the agency is currently 

reexamining 29 how well the test 

parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 sled 

test replicate the real world, including 

test velocity, excursion limits, and the 

test bench seat.30 Among other things, 

this research, targeted for completion in 

2013, will help the agency determine if 

the current head excursion limits need 

to be revised. NHTSA is also working on 

improving the biofidelity of the HIII–6C 

and –10C dummies by implementing 

revisions to the shoulder, thoracic 

spine, and neck which can be retrofitted 

into both the HIII–6C and –10C 

dummies. We will investigate how these 

revisions will affect head and neck 

kinematics of the two dummies. 

In the meantime, the agency will 

adopt the head excursion proposed in 

the NPRM. The HIII–10C dummy is a 

reasonable and valuable tool for 

establishing the maximum head 

excursion limits. 

In a comment to the 2005 NPRM, 

Advocates stated that children are not 

adults and should have injury criteria 

limits scaled to levels lower than those 

applied to adults. Advocates disagreed 

with NHTSA’s tentative conclusion that 

‘‘given the effectiveness of booster seats 

currently in use, the proposed injury 

values would be appropriate to ensure 

continued effectiveness of child 

restraints recommended for children 

weighting up to 80 pounds.’’ Advocates 

stated that greater benefits can be 

obtained if appropriate injury criteria 

are tailored for children in this age 

group. In contrast, Graco stated its 

preference toward the application of the 

same criteria across all weight ranges 

and crash test dummies. 

In response, it should be noted that in 

the TREAD Act rulemaking (final rule, 

68 FR 37620), NHTSA considered 

adopting the scaled injury criteria 

adopted by FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA 

proposed that the FMVSS No. 208’s 

scaled HIC limits of 39015, 57015 and 

70015 be incorporated into FMVSS No. 

213 for tests with the CRABI 

12-month-, and Hybrid III 3- and 6-yearold dummies, respectively. However, 

NHTSA decided against adopting the 

scaled injury criteria because the agency 

was unable to confirm the existence of 

a safety problem that the scaled injury 

limits of FMVSS No. 208 would remedy. 

Relatedly, not enough was known about 

what modifications to child restraints 

could be made for the restraints to meet 

the proposed injury limits. In balancing 

the effects of meeting the scaled injury 

criteria against the possible impacts on 

the price of restraints, the agency 

determined that the scaled injury limits 

should not be added to FMVSS No. 213 

at that time. (See 68 FR at 37649.) 

We continue to believe that the HIC 

limit of 1000 is appropriate for FMVSS 

No. 213. However, as NHTSA 

continuously considers potential 

improvements to FMVSS No.213, the 

agency has a series of research projects 

to generate improved response data for 

the head, neck, thorax, abdomen, and 

pelvis for future child dummies. 

NHTSA will continue to support and 

monitor this ongoing research and will 

consider the findings of this research in 

its efforts to enhance child passenger 

protection. 

Chest Acceleration 

The HIII–10C satisfactorily measures 

chest acceleration, which is a 

performance criterion adopted by this 

final rule. A chest acceleration limit is 

established in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure 

that the CRS safely manages the crash 

energy of the 48 kmph (30 mph) crash 

simulated by the FMVSS No. 213 sled 

test. Chest acceleration measurement 

evaluates how well the child restraint 

and the seat belts allow the occupant to 

‘‘ride down,’’ or absorb, the crash forces 

over a period of time in a manner that 

avoids injury.31


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11636 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

If you held your hand stationary while catching the 

ball, the impact on your hand would be painful. 

With the chest g limit in FMVSS No. 213, the CRS 

will have to dissipate the crash forces in a 

controlled manner, so that the child will have a 

greater likelihood of safely riding down the crash 

forces. 

32 Klinich, K., Reed, M., Orton, N., Manary, M., 

Rupp, J., ‘‘Optimizing Protection for Rear Seat 

Occupants: Assessing Booster Performance with 

Realistic Belt Geometry Using the Hybrid III 6YO 

ATD,’’ UMTRI Report, University of Michigan, Ann 

Arbor, MI, March 2011. 

Abdominal Injury 

The agency did not propose an 

abdominal injury criterion in this 

rulemaking. The 2005 NPRM and 2010 

SNPRM discussed some of the agency’s 

research projects that are exploring 

changes to the ATDs to measure 

abdominal loads. 

In response to Advocates’ comment 

that NHTSA should adopt the 

Abdominal Injury Ratio (AIR) injury 

criterion at this point until research on 

an instrumented abdomen is completed 

or an alternative abdominal injury 

measure established, there is not enough 

information at this time to support the 

AIR criterion. NHTSA discussed in the 

NPRM the development of AIR but did 

not propose the AIR criterion. As stated 

in the 2005 NPRM, we will continue to 

explore different techniques to measure 

abdominal injury, such as measuring 

abdominal loads directly with an 

abdominal insert under development. 

This issue is discussed in more detail in 

the accompanying 49 CFR part 572 final 

rule published today. 

We are hopeful that the instrumented 

abdominal insert under development 

could be retrofitted into the existing 

HIII–6C and HIII–10C dummies. The 

goal is for the abdominal insert to 

provide direct measurement of 

abdominal loads on the dummies and 

facilitate the agency’s ability to 

determine abdominal injury and 

submarining potential in frontal sled 

tests. However, adopting an abdominal 

injury measure at this time would be 

premature. 

For immediate use now, the agency 

has adopted the use of a correlate to 

abdominal injuries, i.e., knee excursion. 

This final rule for FMVSS No. 213 

imposes limits on knee excursion and 

head excursion for the HIII–10C. The 

limit on knee excursion prevents 

restraint manufacturers from controlling 

head excursion by designing their 

restraints so that children submarine 

excessively during a crash. The agency 

has observed a strong correlation 

between knee excursion and 

submarining in the child dummies.32

The agency is not proposing to test 

the dummies seated in an out-ofposition state (i.e., slouched position). 

The agency believes out-of-position 

testing would unnecessarily increase the 

testing burden. We also believe that 

achieving an acceptable, repeatable, and 

reproducible out- of-position test would 

take a substantial amount of time and 

agency resources due to the difficulty of 

positioning the dummy in a consistent 

manner, when not seated as intended. 

We have not found a safety need that 

would justify further complications and 

delays in this rulemaking that would 

result from developing out-of-position 

requirements. 

2. HIII–6C Dummy 

We do not agree with the suggestion 

from Evenflo to suspend the use of HIC 

for the HIII–6C dummy. Some CRS 

manufacturers are using the HIII–6C 

dummy to certify the compliance of 

their CRSs to FMVSS No. 213 and have 

found the dummy to be a satisfactory 

test instrument even with the use of HIC 

as an injury measure. The 

manufacturers have developed products 

that are able to meet the HIC criterion 

and that are able to limit hard chin-tochest contact of the ATD. We do not 

find good reason to suspend the 

criterion for those products. 

We realize that, for some 

manufacturers of products, using the 

HIII–6C dummy to certify the product 

has been problematic. The agency 

believes it would be prudent to improve 

the HIII–6C dummy to make it more 

useful as an FMVSS No. 213 test device 

before making its use mandatory. On 

September 9, 2011 (76 FR 55825), 

NHTSA issued a final rule that permits, 

at the manufacturer’s option, the use of 

either the Hybrid II 6-year-old child 

dummy (H2–6C) or the HIII–6C dummy 

in compliance tests of CRSs. Products 

that are currently certified as meeting 

FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the 

H2–6C need not be removed from the 

market, contrary to what Evenflo 

suggests. Therefore, we see no need to 

suspend the use of HIC for the HIII–6C 

dummy. 

d. UMTRI Positioning Procedure 

Generally described, the UMTRI 

procedure, developed for the HIII–6C 

and HIII–10C dummies, first involves 

centering the belt-positioning seat on 

the seating position of the test bench 

seat. A 30 lb (133 Newton (N)) force is 

then applied to push the beltpositioning seat rearward into the test 

bench seat. The dummy is prepared 

with a lap shield and a pelvis 

positioning pad before being positioned 

on the belt-positioning seat. The lap 

shield is placed on the ATD’s lap to 

keep the lap belt from intruding into a 

gap that the Hybrid III ATDs have 

between the pelvis flesh and thigh flesh. 

A pelvis positioning pad, placed behind 

the dummy, is used to help position the 

dummy with a slight slouch, which 

allows the dummy to adopt a posture 

similar to a child seated in a relaxed 

position. The dummy is positioned and 

centered on the belt-positioning seat or 

other CRS and is pushed rearward by 

applying a 40 lb (177 N) force on the 

dummy’s lower pelvis and the thorax. 

The dummy’s knees are placed pelvis 

width apart. These steps help the 

dummy achieve a ‘‘natural’’ seating 

position on the belt-positioning seat. 

The UMTRI dummy positioning 

procedure results in a more slouched 

dummy when compared to the 2008 

SNPRM procedure using the same beltpositioning seat model. The slouched 

dummy, replicating a child in a relaxed 

position, results in higher HIC values 

than if the dummy were in a more 

upright position. 

Comments 

All but one of the commenters were 

supportive of using the UMTRI 

positioning procedure to test the HIII– 

6C and HIII–10C dummies in beltpositioning seats, believing that the 

procedure would position the ATDs in 

a more realistic seating posture than the 

14 degree torso angle positioning 

procedure. Several commenters did not 

support the UMTRI positioning 

procedure’s inclusion of a pelvis 

positioning pad. 

Evenflo opposed the inclusion of the 

UMTRI positioning procedure into 

FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA had stated in 

the 2010 SNPRM that the UMTRI 

dummy positioning procedure resulted 

in the highest torso angles (i.e., a more 

slouched dummy) when compared to 

the 2008 SNPRM procedure using the 

same belt-positioning seat model, 

resulting in higher HIC values. 

Consistent with that observation, in its 

comments Evenflo stated that it believes 

that the UMTRI procedure yields higher 

HIC values, and that some products that 

are currently compliant using the 

FMVSS No. 213 procedure may have to 

be removed from the market. 

Agency Response 

After evaluating the comments and all 

available information, the agency has 

decided to adopt the UMTRI dummy 

positioning procedure for the HIII–6C 

and HIII–10C dummies in beltpositioning seats, with the exception of 

the provision for use of the pelvis 

positioning pad for the HIII–6C dummy. 

The UMTRI dummy positioning 

procedure was developed from a 

laboratory study funded by NHTSA. In 

this study, UMTRI measured the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11637 

33Reed, M., Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K., 

Manary, M., Rupp, J., ‘‘Assessing Child Belt Fit, 

Volume I: Effects of Vehicle Seat and Belt Geometry 

on Belt Fit,’’ University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI) Report to NHTSA, 

September 2008, http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/ 

bitstream/2027.42/64459/1/102442.pdf (last 

accessed Sept. 6, 2011). 

34See Figure 20 of the ‘‘Procedure for Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the HIII– 

10C,’’ August 2011, which has been placed in the 

docket of the 49 CFR part 572 final rule published 

today to accompany this final rule. 

35See Figure 45 of the PADI document, supra. 

36The desire to maximize the representativeness 

of the test dummy must be balanced with other 

factors. With regard to the HIII–6C dummy, HIC is 

still measured. NHTSA has determined that the HIC 

measurements would not be realistic reflections of 

the ability of the CRS to protect the child occupant 

if the dummy depicted a child in a relaxed position, 

i.e., if the pelvic positioning pad were used. Thus, 

Continued 

postures of 44 boys and girls 5 to 12 

years in age in five different beltpositioning seats and a vehicle seat.33

Using these data, UMTRI developed a 

positioning procedure for the HIII–6C 

and the HIII–10C dummies such that the 

dummy posture was representative of 

the average posture of children of 

similar size in the belt-positioning seats. 

Due to differences in child and dummy 

anthropometry, a pelvis positioning pad 

placed behind the dummy was needed 

to help position the dummy with a 

posture similar to that of a similar-size 

child seated in a relaxed position in a 

belt-positioning seat. 

We have determined that the UMTRI 

procedure should be incorporated into 

FMVSS No. 213 for the reasons 

explained in the 2010 SNPRM. The 

UMTRI procedure is relatively easy to 

implement, and does not require 

numerous positioning iterations as did 

the procedure proposed by the 2008 

SNPRM. The procedure is very similar 

to the procedure NHTSA currently uses 

to position ATDs in child restraints for 

the FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests. 

However, the UMTRI procedure 

includes additional steps throughout the 

procedure, which facilitates more 

control of the CRS, the ATD, and the 

positioning of the seat belt, which 

results in reduced variability in the test 

procedure. 

The UMTRI procedure lets the beltpositioning booster design dictate the 

posture of the dummy and the belt 

routing, so it results in a more accurate 

assessment of the CRS’s characteristics 

than a procedure (proposed in the 2008 

SNPRM) which tries to achieve a rigid 

positioning of the dummy in the CRS. 

The UMTRI procedure lets the dummy 

replicate a posture a child would adopt 

in a relaxed, seated position. 

Importantly, the UMTRI procedure 

showed reasonable repeatability for all 

injury measures (with the exception of 

HIC). See discussion in the 2010 

SNPRM, 75 FR at 71652–71653. (The 

HIII–10C dummy’s neck and lumbar 

spine can be adjusted to different preset 

angles. To control for extraneous 

variables, this final rule is specifying 

setting the adjustment angle for the 

dummy’s neck at SP–16 34 and that for 

the lumbar spine at SP–12.35) 

With regard to Evenflo’s comment, 

this final rule does not apply the UMTRI 

procedure to CRSs other than those 

tested with the HIII–6C and the HIII– 

10C ATDs. With regard to the HIII–6C, 

this final rule does not specify use of the 

pelvic positioning pad with the HIII–6C 

dummy (see discussion in next section 

below). With regard to the HIII–10C, this 

final rule does not adopt the HIC 

criterion. To our knowledge, with those 

allowances in this final rule, no product 

that is currently compliant using the 

FMVSS No. 213 procedure will become 

non-compliant. Thus, we believe that 

Evenflo’s concerns about the UMTRI 

procedure have been addressed. 

Pelvis Positioning Pad 

JPMA opposed the pelvis positioning 

pad for testing belt-positioning seats 

with both the HIII–6C and the HIII–10C 

dummies, stating that the pelvis 

positioning pad adds another variable 

into the testing procedures and would 

increase the pre-test torso angle of the 

dummies, which would increase the 

likelihood of hard chin-to-chest contact, 

thus exacerbating the variability of HIC 

scores. Evenflo also opposed the pelvis 

positioning pad, stating that, while there 

may be some evidence that children 

may sit more reclined than the test 

dummy, using the pad results in an 

artificial orientation that would be 

inconsistent with manufacturer’s 

instructions. Evenflo added that the 

additional recline of the dummy may 

exacerbate the propensity for high HIC 

scores as a result of excessive neck 

movement and/or hard chin-to-chest 

contact during the dynamic test. 

Agency Response Regarding the Pad and 

the HIII–6C 

This final rule does not specify the 

use of the pelvis positioning pad for 

tests with the HIII–6C dummy. 

We recognize that some 

manufacturers are currently using the 

HIII–6C dummy to certify the 

compliance of their CRSs to FMVSS No. 

213, and that they are positioning the 

dummy, and measuring HIC, as 

currently required by FMVSS No. 213. 

The UMTRI positioning procedure 

without the pelvis positioning pad is 

very similar to the method of 

positioning the dummy in a beltpositioning seat specified in FMVSS No. 

213. We have decided to keep the 

UMTRI procedure as close as possible to 

the present FMVSS No. 213 procedure, 

so that manufacturers currently using 

the HIII–6C dummy to certify the 

compliance of their CRSs to FMVSS No. 

213 will not have to alter their CRS 

designs to certify compliance using the 

UMTRI positioning procedure with the 

HIII–6C dummy. 

We agree with JPMA and Evenflo that 

the presence of the pelvis pad may 

result in a greater dummy torso angle 

than the current specified positioning 

procedure in FMVSS No. 213. Since the 

agency sled tests indicated that the 

dummy’s torso angle affects the HIC 

values measured—higher torso angle 

may result in higher and more variable 

HIC values and a greater propensity for 

submarining—we agree with JPMA and 

Evenflo that the pelvis positioning pad 

may exacerbate the propensity for high 

HIC scores. So as not to magnify the HIC 

scores in this manner, we will not use 

the pelvis positioning pad with the 

HIII–6C ATD. 

Agency Response Regarding the Pad and 

the HIII–10C 

This final rule will use the pelvis 

positioning pad for the HIII–10C 

dummy in the UMTRI positioning 

procedure, as proposed in the 2010 

SNPRM. 

Since this final rule does not apply 

the HIC criterion to tests with the HIII– 

10C dummy, the concerns raised by the 

commenters that the pelvis positioning 

pad results in higher HIC measures in 

tests with the HIII–10C are moot. 

Evenflo believes that the pelvis 

positioning pad creates an artificial 

orientation that would be inconsistent 

with manufacturer’s instructions, and 

contrary to NHTSA’s general practice to 

test CRSs in the manner set forth in the 

owner’s manual. NHTSA disagrees that 

the orientation is artificial. The UMTRI 

laboratory test data shows that the 

pelvis positioning pad allows the 

dummy to adopt a posture similar to 

that of a child of a similar size in a beltpositioning booster seat. We believe that 

the pelvis positioning pad enhances the 

representativeness of the HIII–10C ATD 

of children for whom the CRS is 

recommended, and makes for a more 

robust assessment of the effectiveness of 

the CRS in protecting a child 

occupant.36


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11638 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

for the HIII–6C, the agency has decided that, in 

order to obtain a valid HIC measurement, we will 

not to use the pelvic positioning pad to place the 

dummy in the ‘‘relaxed’’ position. 

37 In our tests leading up to SNPRM No. 2, we did 

not use the lap shield. In none of our tests did the 

lap belt get caught in the gap between the pelvis 

and thigh. However, we have decided that the lap 

shield should be specified for use in the FMVSS 

No. 213 compliance test to avoid the possibility that 

the lap belt could get caught in the thigh/pelvis gap. 

Thus, in the regulatory text adopted today, we 

specify use of the lap shield. 

38The lap shield adheres to the dummy with 

double-sided tape, and because of this and its 

flexibility, conforms to the shape of the dummy’s 

pelvis and thighs. Thus, only one lap shield is 

needed. 

39See ex parte memorandum in Docket No. 

NHTSA–2010–0158. 

40 Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0048–0008, page 7. 

41There is also disparate messaging to consumers 

that needs to be addressed. Some CRS 

manufacturers of harness-equipped CRSs that are 

recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb, 

explicitly instruct the consumer to use the vehicle 

seat belt rather than the LATCH lower anchorages 

with a child that weighs more than approximately 

50 lb. However, some CRS manufacturers do not 

prohibit the use of LATCH for CRS installation even 

when used by children weighing 65–80 lb. Vehicle 

manufacturers are largely silent about the 

recommended child weight limit for LATCH 

installation. Some vehicle models specify in the 

owner’s manual a child weight limit of 40 to 48 lb 

for LATCH installation, while a few models specify 

This final rule also slightly modifies 

the specifications for the pelvis 

positioning pad from that proposed in 

the 2010 SNPRM. The final rule 

specifications are more general than the 

proposal, so as to provide flexibility in 

selecting material for the pelvis 

positioning pad while ensuring 

repeatable and reproducible 

performance. The compression set 

specifications for the pelvis positioning 

pad proposed in the 2010 SNPRM have 

not been adopted since they are not 

necessary for ensuring that the pad has 

good repeatability in FMVSS No. 213 

dynamic sled tests. The proposed range 

of acceptable compression resistance in 

the compression-deflection test and the 

density of the foam have been increased, 

to provide flexibility in selection of 

material while ensuring performance 

that is repeatable and reproducible. 

The pelvis positioning pad in this 

final rule is describes as: A 125 × 95 × 

20 mm piece of closed cell (Type 2 

according to ASTM D–1056–07) foam or 

rubber with compression resistance 

between 9 to 17 pounds per square inch 

(psi) in a compression-deflection test 

specified in ASTM D–1056–07 and a 

density of 7 to 12.5 lb/ft3. This final rule 

incorporates by reference ASTM D– 

1056–07 into FMVSS No. 213. 

Lap Shield 

The UMTRI positioning procedure 

uses a lap shield to prevent the lap belt 

from getting caught between the pelvis 

and thigh of the dummy. We have 

decided to use a lap shield for the 

reasons set forth in the 2010 SNPRM,37

but have corrected the figure depicting 

the form. 

JPMA supported the UMTRI 

procedure and use of the lap shield but 

noted that the hip width of the HIII–10C 

is two inches wider than the HIII–6C 

dummy. The commenter asked whether 

the 2010 SNPRM intended to specify the 

use of the same lap shield for both 

dummies. 

Agency Response: UMTRI has 

conducted sled tests with the HIII–6C 

and the HIII–10C dummies using the 

same lap shield for both dummies, and 

the results indicate that the same size 

lap shield is sufficient for both ATDs.38

However, NHTSA has examined the lap 

shield that was depicted in proposed 

Figure 13 of the SNPRM and found that 

the dimensions of the lap shield 

drawing were incorrect, as they were 

significantly larger than the lap shield 

that UMTRI has used with the dummies. 

We have revised the lap shield drawing 

for this final rule with the correct 

dimensions.39

Lap Belt Tension 

Concerning the specification for lap 

belt tension, the agency is not adopting 

the proposed sections S10.2.3 (d)(1) 

through (7) from the 2010 SNPRM, and 

is instead adopting an instruction to 

simply attach the vehicle belts and 

tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. We 

did not adopt the proposed instructions 

because they were specific to 

continuous belts. FMVSS No. 213 

currently does not specify the use of 

continuous belts and thus the SNPRM’s 

provisions for a continuous belt system 

were not relevant to the FMVSS No. 213 

belt system. 

Applying the Procedure to Other ATDs 

In the 2010 SNPRM, the agency 

requested comment on whether the 

UMTRI procedure should be extended 

to dummies other than the HIII–10C and 

the HIII–6C dummies in belt-positioning 

seats. The current FMVSS No. 213 

procedure and the UMTRI procedure are 

very similar, except that the UMTRI 

procedure includes additional steps 

controlling the positioning of the CRS 

on the standard seat assembly, the 

positioning of the dummy, and 

positioning of the seat belts. 

In its comment, JPMA stated that 

since its members have no testing 

experience using the UMTRI procedure 

with other dummies, the JPMA does not 

support using this procedure at this 

time with other dummies. 

NHTSA has decided not to apply the 

UMTRI procedure to ATDs other than 

the HIII–6C and the HIII–10C dummies. 

We are not aware of a need to apply the 

UMTRI procedure to the other ATDs. 

Some CRSs were tested with the HIII– 

3C dummy. In those tests, the ATD was 

positioned on the CRS using the current 

FMVSS No. 213 procedure. Changing 

the positioning procedure for the HIII– 

3C dummy to use the UMTRI procedure 

would require developing and 

evaluating a different size lap shield and 

pelvis positioning pad, endeavors for 

which agency time and resources are 

not available, and for which we do not 

see a need at this time. 

e. LATCH Issues 

The agency proposed in the 2010 

SNPRM that a harness-equipped CRS 

tested with the HIII–10C dummy would 

be attached to the standard seat 

assembly with the seat belt system and 

would not be tested with the lower 

anchorages of the LATCH system. The 

agency proposed this restriction based 

on a comment 40 from the Alliance to 

the 2008 SNPRM requesting the 

amendment. The Alliance explained: 

When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 225, 

‘‘Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,’’ and 

made corresponding changes to FMVSS No. 

213 to require CRSs to comply with that 

standard when tested utilizing Lower 

Anchorage and Tethers for CHildren 

(LATCH) anchorages, the LATCH systems in 

vehicles were intended for use by children 

up to 48 pounds. No vehicle manufacturer 

recommends the use of LATCH anchors with 

children that even approach the weight of the 

10-year-old dummy. And although some CRS 

manufacturers are offering harness-equipped 

CRSs that are recommended for use by 

children that weigh up to 65 pounds, it is the 

Alliance’s understanding that they explicitly 

instruct parents and caregivers to use the 

vehicle belts rather than the LATCH 

anchorages when using such a CRS with a 

child that weighs more than 50 pounds. 

In the 2010 SNPRM, NHTSA also 

explained our view that, if NHTSA 

would not test a CRS with LATCH using 

the HIII–10C even though the CRS is 

recommended for use by children 

weighing over 29.5 kg (65 lb), then we 

believed that the CRS should bear a 

label informing the consumer not to 

attach the CRS with LATCH when 

restraining a child weighing more than 

65 lb. The consumer would be 

instructed to use the seat belt system 

instead of LATCH. NHTSA proposed 

the labeling requirement to reduce the 

likelihood that a consumer would use 

the CRS with LATCH attachments when 

restraining heavier children and risk 

possible failure of the interface or the 

anchor system.41


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11639 

a higher weight limit for LATCH installation of up 

to 50 lb child weight and permit tether anchor use 

for children weighing up to 60 lb. These differing 

weight limits have created confusion among 

consumers. 

42These will be discussed below. Main points 

involved: the reference to the weight of the child 

alone versus the combined weight of child and CRS; 

distinguishing lower anchorage use from upper 

tether anchorage use; and allowing provision for 

securing booster seats so they do not become 

projectiles in a crash. 

Comments 

The proposal that the agency will not 

assess the CRS using LATCH when 

conducting compliance tests of CRSs 

with the 10-year-old dummy was 

generally supported by the commenters. 

In opposition was Sunshine Kids (SSK), 

which believed that the HIII–10C should 

be used to test the LATCH system of a 

CRS that has a stated capacity above 65 

lb. SSK believed that consumers will 

use the LATCH system even if there is 

a label with a stated weight limit. SSK 

supported a certain dynamic approach 

that would enable CRS manufacturers to 

produce harness-equipped CRS for 

children up to 80 lb. JPMA also 

expressed a preference to use, in the 

future, a ‘‘dynamic test to define the 

labeling required on the CRS, if any, and 

define the testing for installation with 

LATCH based on the LATCH use limit 

specified on the CRS.’’ JPMA indicated 

that this approach is under development 

by an inter-industry working group. 

There was widespread support for a 

label providing a weight limit as a 

means of providing needed information 

to the consumer. Many urged changes to 

the content of the labeling.42 Safe Ride 

News urged NHTSA to consider that it 

must be the CRS manufacturer, not the 

vehicle manufacturer, that determines 

the LATCH limit for each car seat 

model, and CRS manufacturers should 

be required to determine such limits for 

all models. The Alliance and the 

Association of Global Automakers 

(Global Automakers) (formerly known 

as the Association of International 

Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)) 

jointly urged the agency to adopt a 

requirement that CRS labels provide a 

maximum weight recommendation that 

is specific to each restraint model, based 

on the difference between 65 lb and the 

actual weight of the restraint. 

Several consumer advocates believed 

that a label was needed also to address 

the different messages consumers 

receive from CRS and vehicle 

manufacturers on LATCH usage. There 

is consumer uncertainty about the 

strength of the LATCH anchors to 

withstand the forces of a CRS 

restraining an older child (i.e., how long 

before LATCH should no longer be used 

to attach the CRS and when the belts 

should be used instead). CU stated: 

‘‘whether or not the research 

demonstrates the ability of the LATCH 

anchors to withstand child masses 

greater than 65 pounds, a clear message 

needs to be provided to consumers as to 

what such limits are.’’ 

The Alliance and many others were 

concerned that the proposed wording 

that referred to a 65-lb child weight 

limit did not adequately account for the 

weight of the CRS, and thus may be 

providing misinformation. The Alliance 

indicated that the 2010 SNPRM’s 

discussion of the reasons for the 65-lb 

child weight limit did not recount 

accurately enough the agency’s analysis 

in the FMVSS No. 225 rulemaking that 

supported the 15,000 N LATCH 

anchorage load requirement (response to 

petitions for reconsideration, June 27, 

2003, 68 FR 38208, 38218). The 

commenter believed that, because both 

the terms ‘‘child’’ and ‘‘child + CRS’’ 

were used in the FMVSS No. 225 

analyses, the 2010 SNPRM’s reference to 

‘‘the child’s weight of 65 lb’’ alone was 

inaccurate since the LATCH load 

requirements were developed using a 

combined maximum ‘‘child + CRS’’ 

weight of 65 lb. The Alliance believed 

the label should refer to the combined 

weight. 

The Alliance stated that referring to 

the combined weight would also accord 

with vehicle manufacturer 

recommendations to discontinue the use 

of LATCH when the child is in the 48- 

lb range. That is, it is assumed that the 

weight of the CRS is about 15 lb, so a 

child in the 48-lb range, plus the typical 

weight of the CRS (15 lb), leads to a 

combined weight of approximately 65 

lb. 

Child restraint manufacturers differed 

in their response to the proposal. JPMA 

expressed a preference for an approach 

that uses a dynamic test to define the 

labeling required on CRS, but 

recognized that such an approach is not 

developed at this time. Commenting on 

the labeling proposal, the commenter 

recommended limiting the use of the 

LATCH system to children weighing 48 

lb or less, until the joint industry study 

is completed. JPMA explained that the 

48-lb recommendation was based on a 

total mass of 65 lb attached to the 

LATCH anchorages, which includes the 

mass of the CRS. The commenter stated 

that the recommendation is supported 

by the agency’s calculations for the 

FMVSS No. 225 load requirements, and 

is consistent with most LATCH use 

limits defined by vehicle manufacturers. 

Evenflo referred to work underway by 

vehicle and CRS manufacturers seeking 

to determine the maximum force 

exerted on the lower anchors by an 

occupied CRS under severe crash 

conditions. According to the 

commenter, the intent is that CRSs 

‘‘exceeding this force threshold in 

laboratory testing be labeled accordingly 

so to alert caregivers to discontinue 

using the lower anchor system once the 

child reaches a specified mass, which 

will vary based on the specific design of 

the child restraint system.’’ Evenflo 

stated that this would allow more 

flexibility for CRS manufacturers to 

offer CRSs with internal harnesses that 

can be used to higher weight limits 

when installed with the lower anchors. 

Evenflo acknowledged that ‘‘[i]n the 

interim, a more conservative threshold 

based on occupant mass can be used,’’ 

which NHTSA understands to refer to 

the proposed label. Evenflo suggested 

that the label(s) should include the alert 

symbol and warning caption on a 

contrasting background and should be 

placed at or near the location where the 

lower anchor system attaches to or 

enters the child restraint to better draw 

attention to it. 

As noted above, Sunshine Kids (SSK) 

supported an alternative approach 

rather than the proposed approach. It 

suggested that, ‘‘[u]sing the dynamic 

capacity for lower anchors and top 

tether is a more practical approach to 

determine the LATCH capacity of child 

restraints.’’ SSK stated that this 

approach would require all child 

restraints to be tested to a structural 

validation test that would measure the 

lower anchor load using the largest 

stated occupant capacity of the CRS for 

the dummy in the test. SSK provided a 

research paper in which 12 kN was 

assumed as a safe dynamic load limit for 

the LATCH lower anchors in NCAP-type 

crash testing, when using a sizeappropriate dummy for a particular CRS 

model. SSK stated: ‘‘[L]oad limitation is 

designed into the structural assembly of 

the Radian [produced by SSK], 

effectively limiting the Lower Anchor 

loads to 12 KN for any ATD 

configuration under 35 mph 47 G sled 

pulse loads.’’ The commenter believed 

that by requiring all CRSs to be tested 

under what the commenter believed to 

be a worst case loading, the consumer 

would be assured that the LATCH 

system and the CRS are designed 

around a maximum dynamic load that, 

the commenter believed, will not exceed 

the structural limits of the vehicle. SSK 

believed that this approach will allow 

the most freedom to design restraints 

that can fit large occupant weights and 

can work within the proposed dynamic 

limit of 12 kN for each lower anchor 

attachment in the vehicle. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11640 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

43 76 FR 10637, Docket NHTSA–2010–00062. 

44The following requirements apply only to CRSs 

equipped with an internal harness to restrain the 

child and with components to attach to a LATCH 

system, and for which the combined weight of the 

CRS and the maximum recommended child weight 

for use with the internal harness exceeds 65 lb. 

Britax requested the proposed 

warning language be revised to permit 

the use of LATCH anchors for beltpositioning seats equipped with 

LATCH. Britax stated that some CRS 

manufacturers recommend the use of 

LATCH with the boosters solely to 

secure the booster, to ensure that if 

unoccupied, the booster will not 

become a flying projectile (and injure 

other vehicle occupants) in a vehicle 

crash. (This suggestion was echoed by 

JPMA and the Alliance.) Britax added 

that the occupant of the belt-positioning 

seat is secured by the vehicle seat belts 

and those vehicle seat belts would bear 

the occupant load in a motor vehicle 

crash, so the child occupant in the 

booster seat does not load the LATCH 

anchors. 

SafetyBeltSafe asked that the label 

permit the top tether anchorage to be 

used to a higher weight of child 

occupant than the lower LATCH 

anchorages. The commenter stated that 

vehicle manufacturers often state or 

imply that 40 lb is the top weight that 

is acceptable for tether anchor use, but 

that Transport Canada testing has tested 

heavy dummies in seats using tether 

anchors and lower anchors with no 

failures. In its comment, Safe Ride News 

pointed out that while lower anchors 

have a functional alternative in the form 

of seat belts, the tether system does not 

usually have an alternative method. Safe 

Ride News asked NHTSA to be mindful 

of extending the option of tether use 

whenever possible, since ‘‘adding a 

tether to installation greatly increases 

the performance of a forward-facing car 

seat.’’ The commenter encouraged 

NHTSA ‘‘to be careful in any 

rulemaking regarding testing and 

labeling to be certain that it does not 

inadvertently discourage or 

unnecessarily limit tether use.’’ 

That view about the benefits of using 

the tether anchor to higher weights than 

the lower LATCH anchorages have been 

echoed by other parties in the context of 

other CRS programs. On February 25, 

2011, NHTSA published a document 

requesting comments on a CRS-tovehicle fit program that the agency was 

considering establishing under 

NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP).43 Some commenters to that 

NCAP document suggested that the 

upper tether should be permitted for use 

with heavier/older children in 

harnessed CRSs since real world data 

indicates benefits of tether use and no 

adverse effects when used for heavier 

children. Some indicated that tether use 

should be permitted for children 

weighing up to 65 lb (child occupant 

weight alone, not combined with CRS). 

Agency Response 

All relevant issues raised by the 

commenters on the LATCH issue are 

addressed below. 

1. The Label 44

The agency believes that a label on 

the CRS with a clear and consistent 

message to consumers regarding lower 

LATCH anchorage use is an appropriate 

means of reducing the likelihood that 

CRSs are attached to the vehicle seat 

with lower LATCH anchorages when 

occupied by children too heavy for the 

lower LATCH anchors. This would help 

prevent lower LATCH anchor loads 

from exceeding their required strength 

level specified in FMVSS No. 225. Such 

consistent labeling will reduce 

confusion regarding LATCH use 

amongst parents and caregivers and 

result in reduced misuse. 

2. Combined Weight 

While the 2010 SNPRM proposed the 

label to have a 65-lb child weight limit, 

the agency agrees with the Alliance and 

others that the 65-lb weight limit should 

be the combined weight of the child and 

the weight of the CRS. In calculating the 

appropriate strength requirements of 

FMVSS No. 225, NHTSA based its 

calculations on an assumption that a 

combined weight of 65 lb (from the CRS 

+ child) would be attached to the 

LATCH anchors (68 FR at 38218). This 

matter is of more significance today 

than before because CRSs have 

substantially increased in mass since 

the LATCH rulemaking, and children 

are riding in harnessed CRSs longer. At 

the time of the LATCH rulemaking, 

CRSs weighed on average about 15 lb 

and children were in harnessed CRSs 

until about age 4. Now, CRSs are 

heavier, with some weighing up to 30 

lb, and there are harnessed CRSs 

marketed for children who weigh up to 

80 lb. 

3. Account for Weight of CRS 

Similar to the Alliance, JPMA 

recommended that the label should state 

a weight limit for the child of 48 lb, 

rather than a child weight of 65 lb, to 

be more consistent with the analysis 

performed by the agency in setting the 

FMVSS No. 225 strength requirements. 

We concur with the commenter’s view 

that the NPRM’s reference to the child 

weight of 65 lb was not correct, the 

NPRM reference should have been to 

the combined weight of the CRS and the 

child. We note, though, that while 

having all CRSs refer to a single child 

weight of 48 lb has simplicity, there are 

some safety concerns with such an 

approach. Currently, there are some 

very heavy CRSs being produced, some 

weighing nearly 30 lb. If those very 

heavy CRSs had a label indicating that 

they could be used with LATCH with 

children up to 48 lb, the LATCH 

anchors could be overloaded in a crash 

(30 lb CRS+48 lb child). 

Safe Ride News also raised concerns 

about a requirement that required all 

CRSs to reference a singular child 

weight. The commenter thought it 

would be confusing if there were, say, 

a manufacturer of a ‘‘high-weight 

harness seat’’ that intended its seat to 

only be used with LATCH with children 

up to 50 lb. If NHTSA required the CRS 

to be labeled with a warning against use 

with LATCH when the child reaches 65 

lb, the consumer could be misled to 

believe the CRS can be used until the 

child reaches 65 lb. Safe Ride News 

believed that clear labeling regarding 

upper weight limits for each model is a 

better solution. 

After considering all the comments on 

this issue, NHTSA has decided to 

modify the proposed label requirement, 

to take a more direct approach than 

referencing a single weight to be 

included on all CRS labels. As 

explained above, we are using combined 

weight (CRS + child) rather than child 

weight alone. The label will be unique 

to each CRS model equipped with an 

internal harness, for which the 

combined weight of CRS and the 

maximum recommended child weight 

for use with internal harness exceeds 65 

lb. Such CRSs will have to be labeled 

with information instructing the 

consumer that the LATCH lower 

anchorages may be used to attach the 

CRS to the vehicle seat when restraining 

a child weighing x lb or less using the 

CRS’s internal harness. The ‘‘x’’ value is 

65 lb minus the weight of the CRS. The 

x value indicates the maximum weight 

of the child for which the LATCH lower 

anchorages can be used such that the 

combined weight (weight of CRS + 

child) does not exceed 65 lb. We believe 

that this approach is clearer to the 

consumer, because the caregiver is 

likely to know the weight of the child 

better than the ‘‘combined’’ weight of 

the CRS + child. The clear and direct 

information will reduce the risk that the 

consumer will keep the child attached 

to the vehicle via the LATCH lower 

anchorages beyond the design 

parameters of the LATCH system. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11641 

45Legault, F. Garndner, B., Vincent, A., ‘‘The 

Effect of Top Tether Strap Configurations on Child 

Restraint Performance,’’ Society of Automotive 

Engineers, SAE No. 973304, 1997. In addition, the 

quantifiable safety benefits that NHTSA estimated 

will accrue from the LATCH rulemaking was due 

to the tether. 

46Paine M., Vertsonis, H., ‘‘Surveys of Child 

Restraint Use in South Wales,’’ 2001 ESV 

Conference, NHTSA, 2001, http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv17/proceed/ 

00237.pdf. 

47Comment from Safe Ride News on ‘‘Open 

Letter to the Curriculum Committee: Tethers Need 

Special Attention in Next Update,’’ http:// 

saferidenews.com/srndnn/srndnn/ 

CPSTsProfessionals/EditorialsfromSafeRideNews/ 

OpenLettertotheNCPSBCurriculumCommittee/ 

tabid/281/Default.aspx. 48This work has been on-going since mid-2006. 

4. Top Tether 

A significant portion of the harm to 

children resulting from motor vehicle 

crashes could be prevented by the 

tether. Accident data from NHTSA’s 

NASS CDS data files from 1995–2007 

indicate that 39 percent of AIS 2+ 

injuries to children 0–12 years of age 

restrained in rear seating positions in 

frontal crashes were to the head and 

face, with 60 percent of these injuries 

resulting from contact with the seat and 

back support. Sled test data indicates 

that use of the upper tether reduces 

head excursions of the occupant 

restrained in the CRS and therefore, 

reduces the likelihood of head impacts 

against the vehicle structure.45

Tethers provide much more secure 

attachment of child restraints compared 

to being attached by the seat belt only 

or lower LATCH anchors only. In 

particular, they provide more rigid 

attachment at the top part of the child 

restraint, so that the CRS can ‘‘ride 

down’’ the crash while the vehicle is 

crushing. This considerably reduces 

excursion of the child’s head relative to 

the vehicle interior, so the head is far 

less likely to hit other parts of the 

vehicle interior—the most likely cause 

of serious injury to a properly restrained 

child. A study in New South Wales, 

Australia found that top tether use was 

extremely effective in reducing injuries 

to children in CRSs.46

CRSs are required by FMVSS No. 213 

to meet a minimum head excursion 

limit (a 32-inch requirement) without 

use of the tether. CRSs must also meet 

an enhanced head excursion 

requirement (28-inch) where a tether 

may be used to meet the more stringent 

requirement. Some child passenger 

safety consumer advocates suggest that 

the risks associated with the tether not 

holding in a crash are small 47 and so 

the use of the top tether should not be 

limited by the weight of the child. 

Although there are demonstrable 

benefits associated with a top tether, we 

are not convinced that tether use should 

be unlimited, i.e. that there need not be 

any weight restriction on use of the 

tether. Not enough is known about the 

consequences of not having any weight 

restriction on the use of the tether 

anchorage. Field data do not indicate 

any failure of tether anchors, likely 

because only few higher-weight rated 

harnessed-CRSs are in use by children 

weighing more than 50 lb. We believe 

that more field and research data are 

needed to determine reasonable limits 

for the combined child + CRS weight, to 

ensure that the tether anchor does not 

fail in most crash conditions, and to 

explore the consequences that may 

result from overloading the tether 

anchorage. The agency has initiated a 

research program to address weight 

limits for LATCH use, and the Alliance, 

JPMA, and Global Automakers also have 

been researching LATCH use weight 

limits. The agency will be able to better 

assess weight limits for the top tether 

after the research is complete. For now, 

the agency is not requiring a 

commensurate label on weight limits for 

use of the top tether. 

4. Testing With the HIII–10C 

We agree with the Alliance and others 

that the LATCH load requirements in 

FMVSS No. 225 (68 FR 38218) were 

developed to ensure that the vehicle 

LATCH anchorages would be able to 

withstand forces resulting from a 65 lb 

mass in a severe crash of a vehicle into 

a rigid barrier (peak CRS acceleration of 

48.4 gs). Using the HIII–10C dummy 

(weighing almost 80 lb) to test the CRS 

using the lower LATCH attachments 

could exceed the assumptions behind 

the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 

225. Accordingly, we believe that use of 

the ATD in such tests of the CRS would 

be unreasonable, since the LATCH 

system as a whole was not designed 

with such use in mind. Therefore, the 

agency will not attach CRSs using lower 

LATCH anchors in compliance tests 

when using the HIII–10C dummy. (See 

newly adopted paragraph S5(f) in the 

regulatory text.) However, as explained 

earlier, the top tether is used for meeting 

the enhanced head excursion 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213 and the 

agency will test harness equipped CRSs 

with and without tether attachment 

when using the HIII–10C dummy. 

In coming to this position, we are 

mindful to view the LATCH system as 

a whole. It would not make sense to 

require CRSs to meet a LATCH 

performance requirement if vehicle 

manufacturers, for good reason, are not 

permitting the CRSs to be installed in 

their vehicles using LATCH. We also 

must be mindful that developments in 

CRS technologies must be compatible 

with vehicle technologies, and vice 

versa, when it comes to child passenger 

safety, since the interaction between 

CRSs and the vehicle in protecting 

occupants is crucial. (Incompatibilities 

between CRS and vehicle designs were 

the reasons NHTSA commenced the 

LATCH rulemaking which resulted in 

FMVSS No. 225.) 

In response to SSK which wanted us 

to test CRSs with the HIII–10C when 

attached to LATCH in part due to 

concerns about consumer misuse, the 

label required by this final rule will 

reduce the likelihood of consumers 

misusing the LATCH lower anchorages 

to attach harness-equipped CRSs for 

which the LATCH system was not 

designed. This rule requires CRSs to 

provide information about lower 

LATCH use limits that is very specific 

to each CRS model. Consumers will be 

provided information on lower LATCH 

use limits that is clearer than ever. This 

clear instruction will facilitate the 

consumer’s understanding—and that of 

any child seat fitting station technicians 

assisting them—of when they should 

transition from the LATCH system and 

reattach the CRS using the seat belt 

system. 

Evenflo also expressed concern about 

misuse, but noted that, to date, it was 

unaware of any real world data to 

suggest that misuse of this type was an 

issue. The agency did not receive data 

or comments on this issue from any 

other commenters. The agency believes 

that the label required by the final rule 

to be on the CRS, which provides a clear 

and consistent message regarding lower 

LATCH use, improves the current 

situation where no information or 

inconsistent information is typically 

provided the consumer. The 

information will help ensure that CRSs 

are not attached using lower LATCH 

anchors to the vehicle seat when 

occupied by children of weights outside 

of the design parameters of the lower 

LATCH system. 

As noted above, the agency also has 

initiated a research program to address 

various issues with LATCH, and will be 

examining the weight limit for LATCH 

use. NHTSA also is aware of the project 

of the Alliance, the JPMA, and the 

Global Automakers to determine 

LATCH use limits.48 However, an 

alternative to specify LATCH weight 

limits based on a dynamic assessment, 

as suggested by JPMA, Sunshine Kids, 

and Evenflo, is not developed at this 

time and may not be available in the 

foreseeable future. In the absence of a 

viable dynamic test or other approach, 

the engineering calculations used in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11642 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

49The April 11, 2011 joint comment from the 

Alliance and Global Automakers (p. 3) stated that 

it would support a provision in FMVSS No. 213 

that would allow CRS manufacturers to certify their 

CRSs to a higher maximum weight rating 

(child+CRS greater than 65 lb) in certain 

circumstances, with the CRS attached using LATCH 

or with LATCH+belts simultaneously. The 

comment stated ‘‘This certification could be based 

on [an] FMVSS 213-type sled test with 

modifications to the pulse, test buck or other 

aspects of the FMVSS 213 test as appropriate for 

this purpose. In the absence of such certification, 

testing of restraints that are intended to 

accommodate larger children (CRS+child weighing 

more than 65 pounds) should not be tested under 

FMVSS [No.] 213 using the LATCH system.’’ This 

comment indicates that determining that a CRS is 

indeed compatible with LATCH in a range of 

vehicles, crash situations, and CRS use conditions 

involves a complex evaluation of the factors we 

mentioned and perhaps more. 

50The risk of allowing such CRSs at this time 

when not enough is known about the compatibility 

factors is the increased risk of anchorage failure in 

a crash, which can be catastrophic to the child 

occupant. The risk of catastrophic failure can be 

avoided by having CRSs for heavier children 

labeled with an instruction to the consumer to use 

the vehicle seat belt system when the child attains 

a certain weight. Seat belts are a readily available, 

safe alternative for the consumer to use. 

51The April 11, 2011 joint comment from the 

Alliance and Global Automakers presented certain 

scenarios (pp. 2–3) and asked NHTSA to address 

them in developing consumer labeling and FMVSS 

No. 213 testing protocols. For the most part, these 

comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

FMVSS No. 225 rulemaking, supra, to 

determine the LATCH load limits are 

appropriate. 

The agency disagrees with the 

suggestion of JPMA, Evenflo, SSK, and 

Safe Ride News that CRS manufacturers 

should have the sole responsibility of 

determining the maximum weight limit 

for LATCH usage when this limit 

exceeds a combined weight of 65 lb. 

While the agency does not want to 

inhibit innovation, the agency believes 

that more research needs to be 

conducted in order to allow a higher 

weight limit for lower LATCH anchor 

use than the anchorage strength 

requirement in FMVSS No. 225 when 

compatibilities between the CRS and the 

vehicle are at issue. 

Although SSK has stated that it has 

developed CRSs with load limiters that 

result in reduced lower LATCH anchor 

loads in sled tests, we know that crash 

pulse, the geometry and location of the 

vehicle anchors, the weight of the child 

and the CRS, and the unique design of 

the CRS are some of the factors affecting 

the anchor loads and we do not have 

enough information to conclude that 

these CRSs will keep anchor loads 

below the anchor strength of the vehicle 

in all configurations and uses in 

vehicles.49 The agency believes that a 

well-considered assessment of these 

new CRSs would likely entail 

developing new procedures and 

requirements for this type of CRS. Such 

a change in the standard is out of the 

scope and timeframe of this 

rulemaking.50

The agency will continue to address 

various outstanding issues with LATCH 

in a research program we initiated in 

2011. The agency will also examine 

closely the results from the ongoing 

research efforts by the industry working 

group to decide LATCH issues in the 

future, as appropriate.51

Under this final rule, harnessequipped CRSs, for which the combined 

weight of the CRS and the maximum 

recommended child weight for internal 

harness use exceeds 65 lb, will not be 

attached to the standard seat assembly 

using lower LATCH anchors when 

tested with a dummy whose weight is 

greater than the manufacturerrecommended child weight limit for 

LATCH use. (See S5(f) of the regulatory 

text.) For example, a harness-equipped 

CRS weighing 15 lb and recommended 

for children weighing up to 65 lb, will 

be attached to the standard seat with a 

lap belt when tested with the weighted 

6-year old dummy since the ATD 

weighs 65 lb. The weight of the ATD 

will be greater than the manufacturerrecommended child weight for LATCH 

use (under this final rule, the label will 

indicate that the CRS may be used with 

LATCH lower anchorages up to a child 

weight of 50 lb (65 lb ¥ 15 lb = 50 lb). 

On the other hand, when tested with the 

HIII–6C dummy (which weighs 48 lb), 

the CRS will be tested separately with 

the lap belt attachment and with the 

LATCH attachment. 

6. Boosters 

In response to Britax and the JPMA, 

we agree that a child in a beltpositioning booster seat is restrained by 

the vehicle seat belt and that the LATCH 

lower anchors will not be excessively 

loaded if the booster happens to have 

LATCH attachments. The agency is not 

aware of any information indicating the 

use of belt-positioning seats with 

LATCH is a risk. Therefore, we are 

excluding belt-positioning seats from 

the LATCH maximum recommended 

weight label. 

7. Other 

1. In response to Evenflo’s suggestion 

to include an alert symbol and warning 

caption on a contrasting background on 

the label and to place the label at or near 

the location where the lower anchor 

system attaches to or enters the child 

restraint, this final rule specifies 

standardized language that should 

appear on the label and instruction 

manual of each CRS. The inclusion of 

the new language on the label will 

modify the current section 

S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) regarding LATCH usage. 

This label is specified to have a 

capitalized statement ‘‘WARNING! 

DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur’’ 

according to S5.5.2(g)(1) and a yellow 

heading area with the word ‘‘warning’’ 

and the alert symbol in black according 

to S5.5.2(k)(3)(1). With regard to 

location, FMVSS No. 213 already 

specifies the recommended locations for 

labels which are meant to be visible to 

the user. 

2. In response to a comment from 

Advocates, we disagree with the 

suggestion to state on the label that 

LATCH is the preferred method of CRS 

attachment for children. LATCH was 

promulgated to simplify CRS 

installation and to reduce the continued 

high incidence of misuse and incorrect 

installation of child safety seats. 

However, not all vehicles in the current 

fleet are equipped with LATCH and not 

all seating positions in a vehicle are 

equipped with full LATCH systems. 

Therefore, seat belts are still used by 

caregivers to install CRSs in some 

seating positions. We believe that 

properly-installed CRSs provide high 

levels of safety whether installed using 

LATCH or the vehicle seat belts, and 

making the suggested statement on the 

label is unsupported. 

f. Lead Time 

As proposed in the 2005 SNPRM, this 

final rule is effective two years after the 

date of publication of this final rule, 

meaning that CRSs manufactured on or 

after that 2-year date are required to 

meet the requirements of this final rule. 

Optional early compliance with the 

requirements is permitted. We believe 

there is good cause for providing two as 

opposed to one-year for the effective 

date. CRS manufacturers will have to 

assess their products’ conformance to 

FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the 

new ATD, and will have to gear up to 

meet new labeling and other 

requirements as well. 

In its comment on the 2005 NPRM, 

Graco had referred to the spikes 

observed in the dummy’s HIC 

measurements and suggested that three 

years of lead time should be provided to 

allow manufacturers time to gain 

experience with the HIII–10C dummy, 

and to make any necessary product 

design changes. Since this final rule is 

not adopting the HIC requirement, we 

believe Graco’s concerns about needing 

time to work with HIC are addressed. 

Dorel commented in 2005 expressing 

concerns about an unavailability of the 

HIII–10C. We believe many 

manufacturers are already testing with 

the HIII–10C dummy and that the final 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11643 

52 ‘‘Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy (HIII–10C) 

Injury Criteria Development,’’ supra. 

53The scenario described here is that when using 

a deceleration sled system. The sled system only 

simulates forward movement as described in this 

paragraph. 

54http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/ 

vehdb/querytesttable.aspx. 

version of the HIII–10C dummy is very 

similar to that currently available. This 

issue is also discussed in the 

accompanying 49 CFR part 572 final 

rule. 

Graco was concerned about having 

additional lead time to get adjusted to 

testing with the HIII–6C. We believe that 

needing more time to adjust to this ATD 

is no longer an issue as the agency has 

permitted manufacturers the choice of 

NHTSA testing their child restraints 

with either the H2–6C dummy or the 

HIII–6C dummy until further notice. 

g. Mass Limit 

The NPRM requested comment on 

eliminating the 4.4 kg mass limit for 

belt-positioning boosters in S5.4.3.2, 

Direct restraint, of FMVSS No. 213. That 

section states: ‘‘Except for a child 

restraint system whose mass is less than 

4.4 kg, * * * each Type I and lap 

portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is 

used to attach the system to the vehicle 

shall, when tested in accordance with 

S6.1, impose no loads on the child that 

result from the mass of the system[.]’’ 

NHTSA sought the amendment because 

the agency announced in 2003 that it 

would not enforce the requirement of 

S5.4.3.2 against belt-positioning seats 

until further notice. (Letter to John 

Stipancich; April 11, 2003; Docket No. 

NHTSA 2003–15005–1.) We believed 

that it did not make sense to have a 

requirement in the standard that the 

agency was not going to enforce. 

However, in place of the 4.4 kg mass 

limit, NHTSA was considering whether 

to propose a chest deflection limit. The 

agency’s concern was about beltpositioning seats over-compressing the 

child’s chest between a bulky booster 

seat back and the shoulder belt in a 

crash. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA presented data 

from VRTC tests of the HIII–10C52 with 

belt-positioning seats of different mass. 

The VRTC tests explored whether more 

massive booster seats caused excessive 

belt forces. Data from the tests, while 

limited, did not demonstrate a 

correlation between seat mass and belt 

force. 

VRTC also examined the relationship 

between seat mass and the measured 

chest deflection of an HIII–10C test 

dummy. The data showed that the 

heaviest booster tested in the agency’s 

limited test series resulted in the highest 

measured chest deflection with the 

HIII–10C test dummy. However, the 

second heaviest booster resulted in the 

lowest measured chest deflection. 

NHTSA sought comments on a chest 

deflection limit. 

Comments 

Britax and JPMA concurred with 

eliminating the 4.4 kg mass limit. On 

the other hand, Graco stated that there 

are insufficient injury data at this time 

that would support the elimination of 

the 4.4 kg mass limit for belt-positioning 

seats. No commenter provided data to 

augment the VRTC test data. 

Britax, Evenflo, and Graco stated that 

the chest deflection criterion needed 

further study before being considered 

for adoption as a performance criterion 

in FMVSS No. 213. Britax stated that it 

was important to adopt chest deflection 

performance criteria only after the 

biomechanics community has agreed on 

reasonable limits. Evenflo stated that, to 

propose the inclusion of a chest 

deflection requirement in FMVSS No. 

213, the interaction between the booster 

seat mass and dummy response should 

be better understood. 

Agency Response 

The agency has decided to amend 

S5.4.3.2 to exclude belt-positioning 

seats from the requirement, for the 

reasons provided in the NPRM. Since 

the agency is not enforcing the 

requirement against belt-positioning 

seats, it does not make sense to retain 

the requirement. The requirement is 

removed from FMVSS No. 213 for those 

CRSs. 

At this time, we are not proposing a 

chest deflection limit to address the risk 

that a massive belt-positioning seat 

could overload a child’s chest. We have 

studied the video footage of the VRTC 

tests of the six belt-positioning seats 

discussed in the 2005 NPRM and 

believe there is a possibility that the 

design of the belt-positioning seat, 

including mass distribution, flexibility, 

vehicle seat belt routing and geometry, 

could have more of an influence on the 

dummy’s chest deflection than the mass 

of the belt-positioning seat. 

We observed that, in a frontal impact 

sled test of a high back belt-positioning 

seat, there is initially little relative 

motion between the dummy and the 

belt-positioning seat on which it is 

positioned.53 As the dummy moves 

forward and interacts with the lap/ 

shoulder belt, it begins to decelerate 

while the belt-positioning seat may 

continue its forward motion (since it is 

not attached to the sled bench seat, its 

forward motion is only restricted by 

frictional forces). Later in the simulated 

crash event, the seat back of the beltpositioning seat may interact with the 

dummy’s back, whose forward motion is 

restricted by the lap/shoulder belt. 

It is this stage in the event where 

there may be a potential for the seatback 

of the belt-positioning seat to load the 

dummy’s back and thereby result in 

increased loading of the shoulder belt 

on the dummy’s chest. If the seatback of 

the belt-positioning seat loads the 

dummy during the time of maximum 

upper torso excursion when the chest 

deflection is highest, this seatback 

interaction with the dummy may result 

in elevated dummy chest deflection. 

We observed through our testing, 

however, that the different beltpositioning seats loaded the ATD 

differently. The Britax Bodyguard (Test 

#9498), which has a mass of 5.98 kg, 

resulted in the lowest chest deflection of 

the six belt-positioning seat models 

tested. The video showed that the back 

of the belt-positioning seat moved 

together with the dummy and bent 

forward following the dummy’s back 

and head movement. This particular 

design showed a lot of flexibility, and 

due to the low chest deflection 

measured by the ATD, we infer that the 

belt-positioning seatback did not 

contribute or contributed minimally to 

the loading of the dummy’s chest by the 

belts. 

The Century Next Step (4.28 kg) (Test 

#9505), Cosco Voyager (3.09 kg) (Test 

#9493) and Graco Grand Cargo (3.44 kg) 

(Test #9496) showed that at the time of 

maximum forward excursion, which 

coincided with the time of peak belt 

loading, the belt-positioning seatback 

was not in contact with the dummy’s 

back. We can deduce that the beltpositioning seatback was not 

contributing to the loading of the chest 

at the time of maximum belt loading. 

On the other hand, the kinematics of 

the Century Breverra (4.25 kg) (Test 

#9495) and Recaro Young Start (8.87 kg) 

(Test #9497) were less conclusive as the 

back of the belt-positioning seats 

appeared to be in contact with the 

dummy’s back at the time of maximum 

forward excursion. However, it is not 

clear from the test data if this contact 

resulted in additional loading to the 

dummy’s chest. The relevant test videos 

are available on NHTSA’s Vehicle Crash 

Test Database 54 and may be accessed by 

identifying the test numbers reported in 

this section. 

Our examination leads us to believe 

that belt-positioning seats can be made 

to reduce the effect of belt loading of the 

child’s chest. The agency also believes 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

55S5.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 limits the force that 

may be imposed on a child by a belt resulting from 

the mass of the CRS. While we are not aware of any 

non belt-positioning CRSs that can apply such loads 

through the belts due to its mass, this requirement 

prevents such future designs. Therefore, the agency 

believes there is a need to retain S5.4.3.2 for nonbelt-positioning seats. 

56NHTSA also stated that, although we believe 

that belts are better positioned over bony structure 

of the body than over soft tissue, how much 

variation from the optimal placement of the belt 

should be permitted by a performance standard for 

the fit to be considered ‘‘passing’’ is unknown. 70 

FR 51727. 57Such variability makes challenging the 

meaningfulness of a belt fit assessment that only 

uses a standard FMVSS No. 213-style bench seat. 

Further, even when using the same booster and the 

same vehicle seat, the belt fitting protocols that we 

assessed lacked sufficient repeatability and 

reproducibility for regulatory purposes. 

58Reed, M., Klinich MA, Ebert-Hamilton, S., 

Klinich, K., Manary, M., Rupp, J., ‘‘Assessing Child 

Belt Fit, Volume II: Effects of Restraint 

Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating 

Procedure, and Belt Fit on the Dynamic Response 

of the Hybrid III 10 YO ATD in Sled Tests,’’ 

September 2008, UMTRI–2008–49–2. 

that because the loading of the seatback 

of the belt-positioning seat on the 

dummy occurs during the rebound 

phase, after the maximum belt loading, 

it appears that the risk of chest injury 

due to the mass of a seat back are 

lessened. Accordingly, we are excluding 

belt-positioning seats from S5.4.3.2 

altogether.55

We recognize that the agency’s test 

data represent a small sample of the 

variety of belt-positioning seats on the 

market. We are also concerned about 

future belt-positioning seats and how 

they might increase in mass to 

accommodate larger children. 

Accordingly, the agency will continue 

to monitor and collect data on the effect 

of belt-positioning seat mass on dummy 

responses. 

h. Miscellaneous Issues 

1. Housekeeping 

This final rule amends S10.2.1 of 

FMVSS No. 213 to add reference to the 

12-month-old test dummy in the 

heading of that section and to remove 

reference in the section to the 9-monthold ATD, which is no longer used in 

compliance tests. References to the 9- 

month-old ATD are also removed from 

other sections of the standard. This final 

rule also removes and reserves S5.2.3.2 

and S6.3 (specifying head impact 

protection requirements for infant 

restraints manufactured before August 

1, 2005) since those sections are 

obsolete. 

2. Belt Fit 

For several reasons, the agency did 

not propose belt fit requirements in this 

rulemaking. In the 2005 NPRM, NHTSA 

considered performance requirements 

for seat belt fit for booster seats or for 

belt guidance devices, but determined 

that existing data did not demonstrate 

that small differences in belt fit 

resulting from various booster seats 

translated into associated improvements 

in the dynamic performance of a belt 

system in a crash (70 FR at 51726). The 

agency added that the point at which 

belt fit degrades the performance of the 

belts from the point of ‘‘acceptable’’ to 

‘‘unacceptable’’ was not determined.56

(Id.) NHTSA also determined that 

previous static belt fit studies 

demonstrated variation in fit could be 

attributed to the interaction between 

vehicle designs and the CRSs (i.e., some 

vehicle-to-booster seat combinations 

were not as good as others and some 

booster seats made the belts fit the child 

dummies better in some vehicles than in 

others).57 (Id.) 

Later, in the 2010 SNPRM, in the 

context of discussing the UMTRI 

positioning procedure, we mentioned 

that we had made observations of 

UMTRI’s belt fit criteria when we were 

working with the HIII–6C and HIII–10C 

dummies. The agency stated that the 

variance and range in repeated 

measurements, especially for shoulder 

belt fit, was unacceptably high (75 FR at 

71656). The results suggested that the 

belt-positioning procedure can be 

influenced by the operator. 

Several commenters submitted views 

in response to these discussions. In 

response to the 2005 NPRM, IIHS, PC 

and Advocates expressed support for 

NHTSA establishing criteria for safety 

belt fit for booster seats. Conversely, 

JPMA believed that belt fit criteria 

should not be included at this time. In 

response to the 2010 SNPRM, IIHS and 

UMTRI stated that NHTSA’s 

repeatability and reproducibility 

concerns were associated with 

differences in the dummy jackets and 

friction issues between the belt and the 

dummy’s chest. They stated that the 

procedure for measuring belt fit has 

been improved and the repeatability and 

reproducibility issues have been 

addressed. 

Agency Response: The agency has not 

proposed belt fit requirements for the 

reasons explained in the previous 

rulemaking documents. We are not 

proceeding with a belt fit proposal at 

this time. We will keep an open mind 

to evaluating the merits of static belt fit 

criteria in the future. Among other 

issues, we will consider for future work 

whether belt fit could or should be 

measured statically. Data indicate 58 that 

the HIII–10C submarines like a human 

child. The dummy appears to have 

potential as an appropriate device for 

use in assessing seat belt syndrome in 

the event that we develop a sufficiently 

biofidelic abdomen that has a means to 

measure compression. 

3. Shoe Size 

This final rule amends S9.1(f) of 

FMVSS No. 213 to amend the range of 

shoe sizes specified for the Hybrid III 6- 

year-old dummy, Hybrid III 6-year-old 

weighted dummy, and the Hybrid III 10- 

year-old dummy. 

4. Preemption Language 

The American Association for Justice 

(AAJ) comments to the 2008 SNPRM 

objected to the preamble’s discussion of 

the preemptive effect of the rule. 

NHTSA’s June 14, 2010 final rule on 

FMVSS No. 305, ‘‘Electric-powered 

vehicles; electrolyte spillage and 

electrical shock protection,’’ has already 

responded to AAJ’s concerns about this 

issue. See, 75 FR 33515, at 33524– 

33525. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 

13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This rulemaking action has 

considered the impact of this regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT) regulatory policies and 

procedures. This rulemaking action was 

not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866. The rulemaking has also been 

determined not to be significant under 

DOT’s regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979). 

This final rule adopts use of a new 

test dummy in agency tests of child 

restraints. The benefits cannot be 

quantified. However, assuring that child 

restraints can meet the FMVSS No. 213 

requirements when tested with a 10- 

year-old child test dummy should be 

beneficial. All child restraints tested by 

the agency with the HIII–10C met the 

performance requirements of this final 

rule, so costs will be minimal. 

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 for any proposed or 

final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11645 

jurisdictions). The Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121 define a small business, in part, 

as a business entity ‘‘which operates 

primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR § 121.105(a)). No regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this rulemaking action under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby 

certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

NHTSA estimates there to be 20 

manufacturers of child restraints, eight 

or ten of which could be small 

businesses. 

The certification responsibilities of 

manufacturers are generally not affected 

by this final rule. Manufacturers of child 

restraints currently must certify their 

products to the dynamic test of 

Standard No. 213. They typically 

provide the basis for those certifications 

by dynamically testing their products 

using child test dummies. The effect of 

this final rule on most child restraints 

will be to subject them to testing with 

a new dummy. All child restraints 

tested by the agency with the HIII–10C 

met the performance requirements 

adopted today, so costs will be minimal. 

The labels and owner’s manual of 

some child restraints will have to be 

revised to add a sentence on consumer 

information. The cost of revising the 

labels is minimal. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 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. 

The 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 preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical 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. However, the 

Supreme Court has recognized the 

possibility, in some instances, of 

implied preemption of such State 

common law tort causes of action by 

virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not 

expressly preempted. This second way 

that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. 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 Executive Order 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this 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 rule and finds that this 

rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes 

only a minimum safety standard. As 

such, NHTSA does not intend that this 

rule preempt state tort law that would 

effectively impose a higher standard on 

motor vehicle manufacturers than that 

established by this rule. Establishment 

of a higher standard by means of State 

tort law would not conflict with the 

minimum standard announced here. 

Without any conflict, there could not be 

any implied preemption of a State 

common law tort cause of action. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes 

further that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. Before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must provide a 60-day 

public comment period and otherwise 

consult with members of the public and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11646 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

59FMVSS No. 213 also requires child restraint 

manufacturers to provide owner-registration cards 

and to keep records relating to owner registration 

information, so that owners can be notified about 

noncompliance or defect recall campaigns. These 

owner registration requirements are not affected by 

this rulemaking. 

affected agencies concerning each 

collection of information requirement. 

NHTSA believes the labeling 

requirement for the LATCH anchorages 

will result in a collection of information 

burden on child restraint system 

manufacturers. We are providing a 60- 

day comment period on reporting 

burdens and other matters associated 

with the labeling requirements. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, before an agency submits a 

proposed collection of information to 

OMB for approval, it must first publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

providing a 60-day comment period and 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

each proposed collection of information. 

The OMB has promulgated regulations 

describing what must be included in 

such a document. Under OMB’s 

regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an 

agency must ask for public comment on 

the following: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

The accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

How to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

How to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g. permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

In compliance with these 

requirements, NHTSA asks for public 

comments on the following collection of 

information: 

Title: ‘‘Consolidated Child Restraint 

System Registration, Labeling and 

Defect Notifications.’’ OMB Control 

Number: 2127–0576. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the 

approval date. 

Type of Request: Label revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business, Individuals 

and Households. 

Summary of the Collection of 

Information: This rulemaking adds a 

sentence to the printed instructions and 

labeling of certain child restraint 

systems (those that have internal 

harnesses, and that are recommended 

for older children). Currently, child 

restraint manufacturers are required to 

provide printed instructions with stepby-step information on how the restraint 

is to be used. Without proper use, the 

effectiveness of these systems is greatly 

diminished. Each child restraint system 

must also have a permanent label.59 A 

permanently attached label gives 

‘‘quicklook’’ information on whether the 

restraint meets the safety requirements, 

recommended installation and use, and 

warnings against misuse. The requested 

revision is to add a sentence to the 

existing instructions brochure and 

labeling that will inform the consumer 

that the lower anchors of a LATCH 

system may be used up to a combined 

weight of child and harnessed-child 

restraint of 65 lb. The purpose of this 

label is to reduce consumer confusion 

about using LATCH, and to assure that 

the lower anchors will be able to 

withstand the forces generated by the 

child and CRS in virtually all crashes. 

Under this rule, 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, will be 

required to 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 

l*l [where * is the 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.’’ 

NHTSA anticipates a change to the 

hour burden or costs associated with the 

revised child restraint labels and written 

instructions. Child restraint 

manufacturers produce, on average, a 

total of approximately 4,500,000 child 

restraints per year. The label would 

apply to approximately 50 percent of 

the total annual production (2,250,000 

units). The hour burden associated with 

the revised label consist of the child 

restraint manufacturer: (1) Determining 

the maximum allowable child weight 

when using the lower LATCH anchor 

attachments as a means of installation 

by subtracting the weight of the child 

restraint from 65 pounds and (2) adding 

this information on an existing label and 

instruction manual. We estimate 2 

seconds of additional burden per child 

restraint for the determination of the 

maximum allowable weight and the 

addition of the information on the 

existing label and instruction manual 

(2 sec × 2,250,000 units = 4,500,000 

seconds = 1,250 hours). 

Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 

1,250 Hours 

Comments are invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

You may submit comments (identified 

by the DOT Docket ID Number above) 

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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. Hand Delivery or Courier: 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, 20590–0001 between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: 

202–493–2251. Regardless of how you 

submit your comments, you should 

mention the docket number of this 

document. You may call the Docket at 

(202) 366–9324. 

Note that all comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 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 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11647 

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs the agency to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

After carefully reviewing the available 

information, NHTSA has determined 

that there are no voluntary consensus 

standards relevant to this rulemaking, 

except this rule incorporates by 

reference an American Society for 

Testing and Materials standard for 

testing foam materials. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This final rule would not result 

in the expenditure by State, local, or 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector of more than $100 

million annually. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. 

This rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significantly adverse effect on the 

supply of, distribution of, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This 

rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. 

Plain Language 

The Plain Language Writing Act of 

2010 (Pub. L. 111–274) and Executive 

Order 12866 require 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 is not 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 this 

rulemaking easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please send them to NHTSA 

at the ADDRESSES section in the heading 

of this final rule. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. This rulemaking 

originally had the RIN 2127–AJ44. This 

final rule has a new RIN because a 

September 9, 2011 final rule on one of 

the issues of the rulemaking was 

considered to have completed action on 

RIN 2127–AJ44. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all material received 

into any of our dockets, including 

petitions for reconsideration of this rule 

(a copy of which will be placed in the 

docket), 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 

(65 FR 19477 at 19478). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.5 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (d)(16) 

through (d)(37) as paragraphs (d)(17) 

through (d)(38) and adding new 

paragraph (d)(16), to read as follows: 

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(16) ASTM D1056–07, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Flexible Cellular 

Materials—Sponge or Expanded 

Rubber,’’ approved March 1, 2007, into 

§ 571.213. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.213 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘child 

restraint system’’ in S4; 

■ b. Adding S5(e) and (f); 

■ c. Revising the introductory text of 

S5.2.1.2; 

■ d. Removing and reserving S5.2.3; 

■ e. Revising the introductory text of 

S5.4.3.2; 

■ f. Revising S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii); 

■ g. Adding S5.6.1.12; 

■ h. Revising S6.1.1(d), S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), 

S6.1.2(d)(2)(i) and (ii), and S6.2.3; 

■ i. Removing and reserving S6.3 and 

S7.1.1; 

■ j. Revising S7.1.2(d) and (e) and 

adding S7.1.2(f); 

■ k. Removing and reserving S9.1(b); 

■ l. Revising S9.1(f), S9.3.1, S9.3.2, and 

the introductory text of S10.2.1; 

■ m. Removing and reserving S10.2.1(a) 

and (b)(1); 

■ n. Revising the first sentence of 

S10.2.1(b)(2), the introductory text of 

S10.2.1(c)(1)(i), and the introductory 

text of S10.2.2; 

■ o. Adding S10.2.3; and, 

■ p. Adding Figures 13, 14a, and 14b. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.213 Child restraint systems. 

* * * * * 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Child restraint system means any 

device, except Type I or Type II seat 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

belts, designed for use in a motor 

vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or 

position children who weigh 36 

kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less. 

* * * * * 

S5 * * * 

(e) Each child restraint system tested 

with a part 572 subpart T dummy need 

not meet S5.1.2.1(a). 

(f) Each child restraint system that is 

equipped with an internal harness to 

restrain the child need not meet this 

standard when attached to the lower 

anchors of the child restraint anchorage 

system, when tested with a test dummy 

of a weight that results in the combined 

weight of the child restraint system and 

the test dummy to exceed 65 pounds. 

Such a child restraint must meet this 

standard when tested using its internal 

harnesses to restrain such a test dummy 

while attached to the standard seat 

assembly using the belt system. 

* * * * * 

S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the 

requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a frontfacing child restraint, and the 

conformance of any child restraint other 

than a car bed to those requirements, is 

determined using the largest of the test 

dummies specified in S7 for use in 

testing that restraint, provided that the 

6-year-old dummy described in subpart 

I or subpart N of part 572 of this title 

and the 10-year-old dummy described 

in subpart T of part 572 of this title, are 

not used to determine the applicability 

of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. A front 

facing child restraint system is not 

required to comply with S5.2.1.1 if the 

target point on either side of the 

dummy’s head is below a horizontal 

plane tangent to the top of—* * * 

* * * * * 

S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for 

belt-positioning seats, each belt that is 

part of a child restraint system and that 

is designed to restrain a child using the 

system and to attach the system to the 

vehicle, and each Type I and lap portion 

of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to 

attach the system to the vehicle shall, 

when tested in accordance with S6.1, 

impose no loads on the child that result 

from the mass of the system, or— 

* * * * * 

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 beltpositioning seats, the first part of the 

statement regarding attachment by the 

child restraint anchorage system 

(LATCH system) is optional. For beltpositioning seats, the second part of the 

statement regarding attachment by the 

vehicle belt does not apply.] 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 ll*ll [*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.’’ 

* * * * * 

S5.6.1.12 The instructions for child 

restraint systems equipped with an 

internal harness 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 include 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 ll*ll [*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.’’ 

S6.1.1 Test conditions. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) When using the test dummy 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subparts 

I and K, performance tests under S6.1 

are conducted at any ambient 

temperature from 19 °C to 26 °C and at 

any relative humidity from 10 percent to 

70 percent. 

(2) When using the test dummies 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subparts 

N, P, R or T, performance tests under 

S6.1 are conducted at any ambient 

temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and 

at any relative humidity from 10 percent 

to 70 percent. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.2 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Belt-positioning seats. A beltpositioning seat is attached to either 

outboard seating position of the 

standard seat assembly in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions 

provided with the system pursuant to 

S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle 

lap and shoulder belt and no tether (or 

any other supplemental device). Place 

the belt-positioning seat on the standard 

seat assembly such that the center plane 

of the belt-positioning seat is parallel 

and aligned to the center plane of the 

outboard seating positions on the 

standard seat assembly and the base of 

the belt-positioning seat is flat on the 

standard seat assembly cushion. Move 

the belt-positioning seat rearward on the 

standard seat assembly until some part 

of the belt-positioning seat touches the 

standard seat assembly back. Keep the 

belt-positioning seat and the seating 

position center plane aligned as much 

as possible. Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of 

force to the front of the belt-positioning 

seat rearward into the standard seat 

assembly and release. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The lap portion of Type II belt 

systems used to restrain the dummy is 

tightened to a tension of not less than 

9 N (2 pounds) and not more than 18 N 

(4 pounds). 

(ii) The shoulder portion of Type II 

belt systems used to restrain the dummy 

is tightened to a tension of not less than 

9 N (2 pounds) and not more than 18 N 

(4 pounds). 

* * * * * 

S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the 

dummy restrained in the child restraint 

system and apply the following force: 50 

N for a system tested with a newborn 

dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart K); 90 

N for a system tested with a 12-monthold dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart 

R); 200 N for a system tested with a 3- 

year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, 

subpart P); 270 N for a system tested 

with a 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 

572, subpart N or I); 350 N for a system 

tested with a weighted 6-year-old 

dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S); or 

437 N for a system tested with a 10-yearold dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart 

T). The force is applied in the manner 

illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows: 

(a) Add-on Child Restraints. For an 

add-on child restraint other than a car 

bed, apply the specified force by pulling 

the sling horizontally and parallel to the 

SORL of the standard seat assembly. For 

a car bed, apply the force by pulling the 

sling vertically. 

(b) Built-in Child Restraints. For a 

built-in child restraint other than a car 

bed, apply the force by pulling the sling 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the specific vehicle shell or the specific 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11649 

vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply 

the force by pulling the sling vertically. 

* * * * * 

S7.1.2 * * * 

* * * * * 

(d) A child restraint that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater 

than 22.7 (50 lb), 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 

is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, subpart 

N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old 

dummy). 

(e) A child restraint that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not 

greater than 30 kg (65 lb) 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 is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, 

subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old 

dummy) and with a part 572, subpart S 

dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted 

dummy). 

(f) A child restraint that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 30 kg (65 lb) or by children 

in a specified height range that includes 

any children whose height is greater 

than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR 

part 572, subpart T dummy (Hybrid III 

10-year-old dummy). 

* * * * * 

S9.1 Type of clothing. 

* * * * * 

(f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 

CFR Part 572, Subpart N) and Hybrid III 

6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR 

Part 572, Subpart S), and Hybrid III 10- 

year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, 

subpart T). When used in testing under 

this standard, the dummies specified in 

49 CFR part 572, Subparts N and S, are 

clothed as specified in Subpart N and 

with child or youth size 13 M sneakers 

weighing not more than 0.45 kg each. 

When used in testing under this 

standard, the dummy specified in 49 

CFR part 572, Subpart T, is clothed as 

specified in Subpart T and with youth 

size 3 sneakers weighing not more than 

0.6 kg each. 

* * * * * 

S9.3.1 When using the test dummies 

conforming to part 572 C, I, or K, 

prepare the dummies as specified in this 

paragraph. Before being used in testing 

under this standard, dummies must be 

conditioned at any ambient temperature 

from 19 ° C to 25.5 °C and at any 

relative humidity from 10 percent to 

70 percent, for at least 4 hours. 

S9.3.2 When using the test dummies 

conforming to part 572 subparts N, P, R, 

S or T, prepare the dummies as 

specified in this paragraph. Before being 

used in testing under this standard, 

dummies must be conditioned at any 

ambient temperature from 20.6° to 

22.2°C and at any relative humidity 

from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at 

least 4 hours. 

* * * * * 

S10.2.1 Newborn dummy and 12- 

month-old dummy. Position the test 

dummy according to the instructions for 

child positioning that the manufacturer 

provided with the system under S5.6.1 

or S5.6.2, while conforming to the 

following: 

(b) * * * 

(2) When testing rear-facing child 

restraint systems, place the newborn, or 

12-month-old dummy in the child 

restraint system so that the back of the 

dummy torso contacts the back support 

surface of the system. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c)(1)(i) When testing forward-facing 

child restraint systems, extend the arms 

of the 12-month old test dummy as far 

as possible in the upward vertical 

direction. Extend the legs of the 12- 

month-old test dummy as far as possible 

in the forward horizontal direction, with 

the dummy feet perpendicular to the 

centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat 

square surface with an area of 2,580 

square mm, apply a force of 178 N, 

perpendicular to: 

* * * * * 

S10.2.2 Other dummies generally. 

When using: (1) the Hybrid III 3-yearold (part 572, subpart P), Hybrid II 6- 

year-old (part 572, subpart I), and 

Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old (part 572, 

subpart S) in child restraint systems 

including belt-positioning seats; (2) the 

Hybrid III 6-year-old (part 572, subpart 

N) and the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 

572, subpart T) in child restraint 

systems other than belt-positioning 

seats, position the dummy in 

accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while 

conforming to the following: 

* * * * * 

S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old in beltpositioning seats and Hybrid III 10-yearold in belt-positioning seats. When 

using the Hybrid III 6-year-old (part 572, 

subpart N) or the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

(part 572, subpart T) in belt-positioning 

seats, position the dummy in 

accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while 

conforming to the following: 

(a) Prepare the dummy. (1) When 

using the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy, 

prepare the dummy according to the 

following: 

(i) Set the dummy’s neck angle at the 

SP–16 setting (‘‘SP’’ means standard 

procedure), see Figure 14a. 

(ii) Set the dummy’s lumbar angle at 

the SP–12 setting, see Figure 14b. This 

is done by aligning the notch on the 

lumbar adjustment bracket with the SP– 

12 notch on the lumbar attachment. 

(iii) Adjust the limb joints to 1–2 g 

while the torso is in the seated position. 

(iv) Apply double-sided tape to the 

surface of a lap shield, which is a piece 

of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm ±0.5 

mm thick (50A durometer) cut to the 

dimensions specified in Figure 13. Place 

the lap shield on the pelvis of the 

dummy. Align the top of the lap shield 

with the superior anterior edge of the 

pelvis skin. Attach the lap shield to the 

dummy. 

(v) Apply double-sided tape to one 

side of a pelvis positioning pad, which 

is a 125 × 95 × 20 mm (+/¥2 mm 

tolerance in each of the three 

dimensions) piece of closed cell (Type 

2 according to ASTM D–1056–07) 

(incorporated by reference; see § 571.5) 

foam or rubber cut from material having 

the following specifications: 

compression resistance between 9 to 17 

psi in a compression-deflection test 

specified in ASTM D–1056–07 

(incorporated by reference; see § 571.5), 

and a density of 7 to 12.5 lb/ft3. Center 

the long axis of the pad on the posterior 

of the pelvis with the top edge of the 

foam aligned with the superior edge of 

the pelvis skin. Attach the pelvis 

positioning pad to the dummy. 

(vi) Dress and prepare the dummy 

according to S9. 

(2) When using the Hybrid III 6-yearold dummy, prepare the dummy 

according to the following: 

(i) If necessary, adjust the limb joints 

to 1–2 g while the torso is in the seated 

position. 

(ii) Apply double-sided tape to the 

surface of a lap shield, which is a piece 

of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm 

thick ±0.5 mm thick (50A durometer) 

cut to the dimensions specified in 

Figure 13. Place the lap shield on the 

pelvis of the dummy. Align the top of 

the lap shield with the superior anterior 

edge of the pelvis skin. Attach the lap 

shield to the dummy. 

(iii) Dress and prepare the dummy 

according to S9. 

(b) Position the belt-positioning seat 

according to S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii). 

(c) Position the dummy in the beltpositioning seat. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
11650 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Place the dummy on the seat 

cushion of the belt-positioning seat such 

that the plane of the posterior pelvis is 

parallel to the plane of the seat back of 

the belt-positioning seat, standard seat 

assembly or vehicle seat back, but not 

touching. Pick up and move the dummy 

rearward, maintaining the parallel 

planes, until the pelvis positioning pad, 

if used, or the pelvis or back of the 

dummy and the back of the beltpositioning seat or the back of the 

standard seat assembly, are in minimal 

contact. 

(2) Straighten and align the arm 

segments horizontally, then rotate the 

arms upward at the shoulder as far as 

possible without contacting the beltpositioning seat. Straighten and align 

the legs horizontally and extend the 

lower legs as far as possible in the 

forward horizontal direction, with the 

feet perpendicular to the centerline of 

the lower legs. 

(3) Using a flat square surface with an 

area of 2580 square millimeters, apply a 

force of 178 N (40 lb) first against the 

dummy crotch and then against the 

dummy thorax on the midsagittal plane 

of the dummy, perpendicular to: 

(i) The plane of the back of the beltpositioning seat, in the case of a beltpositioning seat with a back, or, 

(ii) The plane of the back of the 

standard seat assembly or vehicle seat, 

in the case of a backless belt-positioning 

seat or built-in booster. 

(4) Rotate the arms of the dummy 

down so that they are perpendicular to 

the torso. 

(5) Bend the knees until the back of 

the lower legs are in minimal contact 

with the belt-positioning seat, standard 

seat assembly or vehicle seat. Position 

the legs such that the outer edges of the 

knees are 180 +/¥ 10 mm apart for the 

Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and 220 

+/¥ 10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 10- 

year-old dummy. Position the feet such 

that the soles are perpendicular to the 

centerline of the lower legs. In the case 

of a belt-positioning seat with a back, 

adjust the dummy so that the shoulders 

are parallel to a line connecting the 

shoulder belt guides. This can be 

accomplished by leaning the torso such 

that the dummy’s head and neck are 

centered on the backrest components of 

the belt-positioning seat. In case of a 

backless child restraint, adjust the 

dummy’s torso so that the head is as 

close to laterally level as possible. 

(d) Apply the belt. Attach the vehicle 

belts and tighten them as specified in 

S6.1.2. 

(e) Dummy final positioning. (1) 

Check the leg, feet, thorax and head 

positions and make any necessary 

adjustments to achieve the positions 

described in S10.2.3(c)(5). Position the 

legs, if necessary, so that the leg 

placement does not inhibit thorax 

movement in tests conducted under S6. 

(2) 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, in the case of an add-on 

system, or the specific vehicle shell or 

specific vehicle, in the case of a builtin system, as appropriate. Position the 

arms, if necessary, so that the arm 

placement does not inhibit torso or head 

movement in tests conducted under S6. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11651 

Issued on: February 16, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4134 Filed 2–21–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 572 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0175] 

RIN 2127–AJ49 

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test 

Dummy 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes 

regulations setting forth specifications 

and qualification requirements for a 

Hybrid III 10-year-old size child test 

dummy (HIII–10C). In a companion 

document published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register, NHTSA is 

adopting use of the dummy to test child 

restraints recommended for children 

weighing more than 65 pounds (lb) for 

compliance with the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard for child 

restraint systems. The HIII–10C dummy 

enables NHTSA to assess the 

performance of child restraint systems 

in restraining children in the 8- to 12- 

year-old age range. 

DATES: Effective date: April 27, 2012. 

The incorporation by reference of the 

publications listed in the rule has been 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of April 27, 2012. 

If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by April 12, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. For more 

information, see Section V, Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Peter 

Martin, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 

202–366–5668) (fax 202–493–2990). For 

legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, 

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 

(telephone 202–366–2992) (fax 202– 

366–3820). The mailing address for 

these officials is the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this rule: The 

petition will be placed in the docket. 

Anyone is able to search the electronic 

form of all documents received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER27FE12.002</GPH>