81836 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

III. Authority and Signature 

Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health, authorized the preparation of 

this document. It is issued under the 

authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); 5 U.S.C. 

553; Section 304, Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–549, 

reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 Note); 

Section 41, Longshore and Harbor 

Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 

941); Section 107, Contract Work Hours 

and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 

3704); Section 1031, Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1992 

(42 U.S.C. 4853); Section 126, 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986, as 

amended (reprinted at 29 U.S.C.A. 655 

Note); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8– 

2020 (85 FR 58393–94); and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on September 

30, 2024. 

Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23144 Filed 10–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0058] 

RIN 2127–AM64 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child 

Restraint Systems,’’ FMVSS No. 213a, 

‘‘Child Restraint Systems—Side Impact 

Protection,’’ and FMVSS No. 213b, 

‘‘Child Restraint Systems’’—Response 

to Petitions for Reconsideration 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to 

petitions for reconsideration of the June 

2022 final rule establishing Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 213a and the December 2023 final 

rule establishing FMVSS No. 213b. This 

final rule grants petitions to incorporate 

a dummy positioning procedure for 

shield-type child restraint systems 

(CRSs), clarify test procedure for CRSs 

with certain types of side impact 

technologies, remove testing CRSs 

installed with lap belt only in frontal 

sled tests, and correct inconsistencies in 

the regulatory text and figures in 

FMVSS Nos. 213a and 213b. This final 

rule also partially grants the petition to 

align compliance dates between the 

standards. All other requests are denied. 

DATES: 

Effective date: November 8, 2024. 

Reconsideration date: If you wish to 

petition for reconsideration of this rule, 

your petition must be received by 

November 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Note that all petitions received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, at the address given under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, you should submit a copy, 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given above. When you send 

a submission containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR part 

512). Please see further information in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER09OC24.012</GPH>

C.4.16 CHEMICAL UNDER PRESSURE 

(Classified in Accordance with Appendix B.3.2 of this section) 

[[Hazard category 

3 

Precantionary statements 

Prevention 

Keep away from heat, 

hot surfaces, sparks, 

open flames and other 

ignition sources. 

No smoking. 

Signal word 

Warning 

Response 

!Stop leak if safe to do so. 

Hazard statement 

Chemical under pressure: 

may explode if heated. 

Storage 

Protect from snnlight. 

Store in a well-ventilated 

place. 

Pictogram 

Gas Cylinder 

Disposal 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81837 

1Petitions have been docketed here: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0051- 

0004. 

2Petitions have been docketed here: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0040- 

0003. 

3The compliance date is the date that the 

applicable products must comply with the rule. 

the Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

section of this preamble. 

Privacy Act: The petition will be 

placed in the docket. Anyone can search 

the electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit https://

www.transportation.gov/individuals/ 

privacy/privacy-act-system-recordsnotices. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, go to 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may call Cristina 

Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards (telephone: (202) 366–6345). 

For legal issues, you may call Matthew 

Filpi, Office of Chief Counsel 

(telephone: (202) 366–2992). Address: 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 

213a) and Agency Response 

a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With 

Fixed, Adjustable and Configurable Side 

Impact Technologies 

b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed 

or Movable Surface To Restrain the Child 

in FMVSS No. 213a 

c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting 

Angle Tolerance Correction 

d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and 

Protrusion Limits in FMVSS Nos. 213, 

213a and 213b 

e. Removing ‘‘At NHTSA’s Option’’ Phrase 

in S6.1.2 

f. Removing 45 Degree CRS Angle at 

Completion of Test Requirement 

g. Correcting Error on Table 1 to S5.1.6 

h. Clarifications 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS 

Nos. 213 and 213b) and Agency 

Response 

a. Aligning Compliance Dates 

b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or 

Changing Sunset Date 

c. Unit Conversion Consistency 

d. Remove Duplicative Language 

e. Registration Card Guidelines 

IV. Correction to Regulatory Text 

V. Costs and Benefits 

VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date 

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

On June 30, 2022, NHTSA published 

a final rule (side impact final rule) (87 

FR 39234) amending FMVSS No. 213, 

‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to establish 

side impact performance requirements 

for CRSs designed to seat children 

weighing up to 18.1 kilograms (kg) (40 

pounds (lbs)), or for children in a height 

range that includes heights up to 1100 

millimeters (43.3 inches). The side 

impact performance requirements were 

established in the new FMVSS No. 

213a, ‘‘Child restraint systems—side 

impact protection,’’ which is referenced 

by Standard No. 213. 

On December 5, 2023, NHTSA 

published a final rule (frontal test 

upgrade final rule) (88 FR 84514) 

amending FMVSS No. 213 and adding 

FMVSS No. 213b, ‘‘Child restraint 

systems.’’ The amendments to FMVSS 

No. 213 modernize the standard by 

updating the CRS owner registration 

program, labeling requirements 

instructing consumers on correct use of 

child restraints, requirements for add-on 

school bus-specific child restraint 

systems, and provisions for NHTSA’s 

use of test dummies in NHTSA 

compliance tests. The establishment of 

FMVSS No. 213b will update the 

standard seat assembly on which 

NHTSA tests child restraint systems for 

compliance with frontal crash 

performance requirements. 

NHTSA received petitions for 

reconsideration of the side impact final 

rule,1 from Columbus Trading-Partners 

USA, Inc. (Cybex products distributor) 

and Evenflo (Goodbaby International 

subsidiary) Inc. (Evenflo). NHTSA 

received petitions for reconsideration 2

of the frontal test upgrade final rule 

from Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA) and Evenflo. 

The petitioners to the side impact 

final rule requested clarifications on 

dummy positioning test procedures for 

shield-type CRSs and on test procedures 

for CRSs that have adjustable and 

configurable technologies for side 

impact. The petitioners also requested 

minor corrections to the regulatory text 

of the adopted standard. NHTSA is 

granting the petitions to incorporate a 

dummy positioning procedure for 

shield-type CRSs, correct 

inconsistencies in the side impact seat 

assembly mounting angle tolerances in 

the regulatory text and figures, and 

correct inconsistent units between the 

standards. NHTSA is denying the 

remaining requests from the two 

petitioners. 

The petitioners to the frontal test 

upgrade final rule requested the 

following: (1) consolidations of the 

compliance dates 3 of FMVSS Nos. 213, 

213a and 213b, (2) removal of tests with 

CRS installation using Type 1 seat belt 

or an earlier sunset date for testing CRSs 

installed with the Type 1 seat belt, (3) 

minor corrections to the regulatory text 

of the adopted standards, and, (4) 

guidance on the new requirements for 

the registration card. NHTSA is partially 

granting the request to align the 

compliance dates and granting the 

request to remove Type 1 seat belt 

testing. NHTSA is also making minor 

corrections to the regulatory text 

identified by the petitioners. The agency 

is denying the request for rulemaking to 

provide guidance on the new 

registration card requirements. 

II. Petitions for Reconsideration 

(FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency 

Responses 

a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs 

With Fixed, Adjustable, and 

Configurable Side Impact Technologies 

Cybex requested NHTSA clarify how 

fixed, adjustable, and configurable side 

impact technologies will be tested in 

future annual compliance test programs. 

Cybex explained that previous NHTSA 

interpretations have deemed ‘‘belt 

tensioning bars, additional straps and 

support legs’’ as supplemental devices. 

Cybex further noted that supplemental 

devices are not used during compliance 

testing per the specifications in S6.1.2 of 

FMVSS No. 213 that no supplemental 

devices be used to install CRSs. 

Cybex explained that neither the 

dynamic test procedure nor past 

interpretations Cybex reviewed provide 

guidance on other aspects of adjusting 

or use of a child restraint beyond S6.1.2. 

This section of the standard requires 

CRS installation in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions provided 

with the CRS. 

Cybex asked NHTSA for clarification 

on (1) whether an adjustment specified 

in the manufacturer’s instruction is 

allowed to be made prior to or after 

securing the CRS to the side impact seat 

assembly (SISA), and (2) whether an 

adjustment of a technology that is part 

of the CRS is allowed to be made prior 

to testing according to this 

supplemental device requirement. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is denying 

Cybex’s petition to provide informal 

guidance on the testing procedure 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81838 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

4Cybex provided a picture of a shield-type CRS 

with a dummy to exemplify. The petition can be 

found at Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0051–0004. 

5Fixed or movable CRS surfaces are described in 

S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 213 and S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS 

No. 213b. 

6There are no CRSs with a fixed or movable 

surface that restrain the child in the U.S. market 

currently. 

7 If the CRS design results in a Q3s dummy arm 

position high enough that it interacts with the head 

(inhibiting head movement) during testing, the CRS 

design may need to be changed to prevent this from 

happening. NHTSA does not expect the arm 

position to be high enough to interact with the 

dummy’s head in known shield-type CRSs. But 

NHTSA will evaluate this issue on a case-by-case 

basis. 

8Seat orientation reference line or SORL means 

the horizontal line through Point Z as illustrated in 

Figure 1 to § 571.213a. 

outlined in FMVSS No. 213a. Under 49 

CFR 553.35, petitions for 

reconsideration must contain a brief 

statement of the complaint and an 

explanation why compliance with the 

rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, 

or is not in the public interest. We do 

not believe that Cybex has met its 

burden of explaining why the FMVSS 

No. 213a test procedure is not 

practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in 

the public interest. Instead, Cybex’s 

petition simply requests guidance on 

how NHTSA would test CRSs under 

FMVSS No. 213a. NHTSA does not 

provide informal guidance in responses 

to petitions for reconsideration. 

Although we will not be providing 

guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a’s test 

procedures apply to the adjustable side 

impact technology discussed by Cybex, 

we do think this issue is worth 

addressing. Instead of addressing it here 

in the form of guidance, we plan to 

initiate a rulemaking on this issue. 

FMVSS No. 213a is new requirement 

that does not take effect until June of 

2025. Accordingly, when NHTSA 

published its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2014 proposing 

side impact protection requirements for 

child restraint systems, the agency 

could not predict how child restraint 

manufacturers would choose to comply 

with the standard. Additionally, no 

commenters discussed this technology 

during the NPRM stage. NHTSA 

conducted rigorous testing to ensure 

that the requirements of FMVSS No. 

213a were practicable, but as is the case 

with many of our standards, 

manufacturers innovate to meet the 

requirements of our standards. This is 

the case with the adjustable side impact 

technology Cybex discusses in its 

petition for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, the agency could not have 

considered how to test with this 

technology since it did not exist when 

the requirements were proposed and 

how popular these designs would 

become. 

Because the agency has limited test 

experience with adjustable side impact 

technology, we cannot yet speak to any 

safety benefits associated with it. The 

agency plans to continue its research 

and testing to determine if and how 

FMVSS No. 213a should be amended to 

accommodate for this technology. The 

agency also plans to consider potential 

misuse and how restraints with this 

technology perform under the test 

procedures outlined in FMVSS No. 213a 

with and without the technology 

deployed. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

NHTSA is denying Cybex’s request to 

provide guidance on how FMVSS No. 

213a’s test procedures apply to 

deployable side impact technology. 

b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a 

Fixed or Movable Surface To Restrain 

the Child in FMVSS No. 213a 

Cybex noted that the current FMVSS 

No. 213 allows the use of a forward 

restraining surface (e.g., shield) in lieu 

of a harness. However, Cybex states the 

side impact final rule did not consider 

CRSs that use a forward restraining 

surface. Cybex argued that the 25-degree 

dummy arm positioning required in the 

new FMVSS No. 213a standard could 

not be met in forward facing CRSs with 

restraining surfaces. Accordingly, Cybex 

requested clarification regarding test 

dummy arm positioning for CRSs with 

restraining surfaces. Cybex also asked 

whether placing the dummy’s arm 

above the forward restraining surface 

would be considered as ‘‘inhibiting the 

torso or head movement.’’ Cybex noted 

that if this interaction is considered as 

‘‘inhibiting the torso or head 

movement,’’ it requested clarification on 

the allowable limb position.4

Agency Response: NHTSA is granting 

Cybex’s request to specify arm 

placement in FMVSS No. 213a testing 

for shield-type CRSs where the arm 

cannot be placed at a 25-degree angle. 

As background, FMVSS No. 213a 

specifies a procedure in S9.2(d) and 

S9.3(d) to position the Q3s dummy’s 

arm in CRSs that can be used forwardfacing and/or rear-facing. The arm is 

rotated downwards in the plane parallel 

to the dummy’s midsagittal plane until 

the arm engages the Q3s detent that 

positions the arm at a 25-degree angle 

with respect to the thorax. However, 

some CRS designs equipped with a 

fixed or movable surface 5 that restrain 

the dummy 6 may prevent the arm from 

engaging the detent to position the arm 

at a 25-degree angle with respect to the 

thorax. 

Section 10.2.2(d) of FMVSS Nos. 213 

and 213b specifies positioning the arm 

of dummies by rotating the limb 

downwards in the plane parallel to the 

dummy’s midsagittal plane until the 

limb contacts a surface of the CRS or the 

standard seat assembly. This test 

procedure applies to all the dummies 

used in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b. The 

procedure provides for consistent 

positioning of the dummy’s arms for all 

CRSs, including the ones equipped with 

a fixed or movable surface that restrain 

the child in FMVSS No. 213. 

In response to Cybex’s petition, 

NHTSA is specifying use of the FMVSS 

Nos. 213 and 213b arm positioning 

procedure for the Q3s dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213a for those CRSs 

equipped with a fixed or movable 

surface that restrain the child and in 

which the specified 25-degree arm angle 

cannot be reached. The 25-degree angle 

is specified for side impact testing, 

positioning the arm to expose the thorax 

to directly contact the intruding door or 

CRS side structure. This arm positioning 

procedure produces a more repeatable 

test. Utilizing the FMVSS Nos. 213 and 

213b arm positioning procedure for 

positioning the Q3s dummy in FMVSS 

No. 213a will still achieve NHTSA’s 

goal to position the arm in a manner 

that exposes the thorax so that it 

directly contacts the intruding door or 

CRS side structure during 213a testing. 

An arm positioned at a 25-degree angle 

or (slightly) higher would likely not be 

considered to ‘‘inhibit the torso or head 

movement.’’ 7

c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting 

Angle Tolerance Correction 

FMVSS No. 213a adopted 

requirements to attach the SISA to the 

sled test platform so the Seat 

Orientation Reference Line (SORL) 8 of 

the seat is at a 10-degree angle counterclockwise from the perpendicular to the 

travel direction of the test platform. 

Evenflo noted that the regulatory text 

has a discrepancy in the angle tolerance 

specified in S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. 

Section 6.1.1(a)(1) specifies the SISA is 

mounted on a dynamic test platform so 

that the SORL is 10 ±0.1 degrees from 

the perpendicular direction of the test 

platform travel. Figure 2A specifies this 

angle to be 10 ±1 degrees. Evenflo 

requested clarification on the 

discrepancy between the text and the 

drawing. 

Agency Response: The ±0.1 tolerance 

of the SISA mounting angle specified in 

S6.1.1(a)(1) is incorrect. NHTSA is 

granting Evenflo’s petition to correct the 

discrepancy in the mounting angle 

tolerance between S6.1.1(a)(1) and 

Figure 2A. NHTSA is specifying the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81839 

9The sled test forces acting upon a CRS can be 

represented as a 3-dimentional force vector. The 

portion of that force vector that is parallel to the 

fore/aft (frontal) ‘‘vehicle’’ direction is the frontal 

component of the force vector. The FMVSS No. 

213a sliding seat test fixture (representing the 

vehicle seat) is at a 10 degree angle to the sled’s 

direction of travel during the test. Defining test 

forces based upon a coordinate system fixed to the 

seat fixture, there are frontal, lateral, and vertical 

components to the forces. 

10www.regulations.gov. 

11Web Version: https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2022/06/30/2022-13658/federal-motorvehicle-safety-standards-child-restraint-systemschild-restraint-systems-side-impact PDF Version: 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-06- 

30/pdf/2022-13658.pdf. 

12Link to the electronic code of federal 

regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/ 

subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section571.213a. 

correct tolerance in S6.1.1(a)(1) so that 

it indicates an angle of 10 ±1 degrees, 

making it consistent with Figure 2A. 

d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and 

Protrusion Limits in FMVSS Nos. 213, 

213b and 213a 

Evenflo requested NHTSA specify the 

protrusion dimensions requirements 

existing in both FMVSS No. 213 and 

213a in the same units. Evenflo noted 

that FMVSS No. 213 uses inches while 

FMVSS No. 213a uses millimeters. 

Evenflo argued that this discrepancy can 

lead to confusion in application and 

interpretation of the standard. 

Agency Response: NHTSA agrees that 

the units for the same protrusion 

dimension requirements should be the 

same in FMVSS Nos. 213 (S5.1.1(a) and 

S5.2.4), 213a (S5.1.1(a) and S5.1.4) and 

213b (S5.1.1(a) and S5.2.4). NHTSA is 

granting this petition and will change 

the units of FMVSS No. 213 and 213b 

to millimeters to be consistent with 

FMVSS No. 213a. 

e. Removing ‘‘at NHTSA’s Option’’ 

Phrase in S6.1.2 

Evenflo sought clarification regarding 

the phrase ‘‘at NHTSA’s option’’ in the 

FMVSS No. 213b Dynamic Test 

Procedure section (S6.1.2). Evenflo 

explained that the section is followed by 

test procedures with each of the 

attachment methods. Evenflo added that 

none of the attachments are optional for 

a manufacturer when it is certifying 

compliance with FMVSS Nos. 213 and 

213a. Evenflo argued that if ‘‘at 

NHTSA’s option’’ refers to test options 

available to NHTSA as part of its annual 

test compliance program, then the 

language is more appropriate for test 

procedures and not in the regulation. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is denying 

Evenflo’s petition to remove the phrase 

‘‘at NHTSA’s option’’ from the 

regulatory text. This phrase is included 

to make clear that NHTSA may conduct 

the compliance test with a CRS attached 

in any or all of its attachment modes. 

NHTSA notes that the agency’s safety 

standards specify the test conditions 

and procedures that the agency will use 

to evaluate the performance of the 

vehicle or equipment (such as CRSs) 

being tested for compliance to the safety 

standard. While manufacturers are 

required to certify their products meet 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 

when tested in accordance with the 

standard and exercise due care in doing 

so, they are not specifically required to 

test their CRSs the way NHTSA tests 

child restraints in a compliance test. 

f. Removing 45 Degrees CRS Angle at 

Completion of Test Requirement 

Evenflo questioned whether the 

requirement in S5.1.1 (c) that does not 

allow the angle between the system’s 

back support for the child and the 

system’s seating surface to be less than 

45 degrees at the completion of the test 

is needed as it is already required in the 

FMVSS No. 213 frontal dynamic test. 

Evenflo also argued that that the frontal 

force (fore/aft vehicle direction) 

component 9 in the side impact test is 

small compared to the side (lateral 

vehicle direction) component, and, 

small compared to the frontal 

component of the frontal crash in 

FMVSS No. 213. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is denying 

this petition, and will retain the S5.1.1 

(c) requirement. While the side impact 

test has a small longitudinal component, 

NHTSA believes this requirement will 

ensure CRS integrity in a broader range 

of crash environments. While the 

agency has not seen any CRSs fail to 

meet this requirement during our 

testing, the CRS market is constantly 

evolving, with manufacturers 

introducing new designs into the market 

every year. This requirement will ensure 

that future designs perform adequately 

in a side impact crash as well as a 

frontal crash. 

g. Correcting Error on Table 1 in 

Paragraph S5.1.6 

Evenflo commented that Table 1 in 

paragraph S5.1.6 (installation) does not 

match the means of installation 

indicated in S6.1.2. 

Agency Response: After reviewing the 

table example Evenflo showed in its 

petition, we note that the table in 

Evenflo’s petition was taken from the 

web version of the June 2022 final rule 

in the docket system,10 and the web 

version had a formatting error. However, 

the June 2022 final rule in the Federal 

Register 11 and the electronic Code of 

Federal Regulations 12 display the 

correct table. Since receiving Evenflo’s 

comment, the docket system has 

corrected the table formatting and now 

displays the correct table. 

h. Clarifications 

Evenflo requested several 

clarifications regarding the contactable 

surfaces and protrusion limitation 

requirements. These clarification 

requests included: 

(1) If materials such as soft goods, 

padding, energy absorbing materials or 

elements, or flexible materials are 

permanently affixed to another 

component, whether the underlying 

component is considered contactable. 

(2) Whether the portion of the shell 

that is adjacent to the headrest is 

considered contactable in CRSs with an 

adjustable headrest. 

(3) Whether a contactable surface 

varies based on the size of the test 

dummy or associated with the largest 

dummy for a given use configuration. 

(4) Whether energy absorbing 

materials integrated to the system’s 

structures are considered padding and 

flexible overlay materials and whether 

they would be removed prior to 

inspection. 

(5) Whether energy absorbing material 

that is attached with mechanical 

fasteners (push pins, tape or glue, etc.) 

is considered padding or part of the 

structure to be evaluated for the 

protrusion limitations. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is denying 

Evenflo’s clarifications request. The 

protrusion limitation requirements in 

question are not specific to FMVSS No. 

213a and have been present in FMVSS 

No. 213 (S5.2.4) since 1979. The 2014 

NPRM proposing the side impact 

requirements for FMVSS No. 213 

(79FR4570) proposed the same existing 

protrusion limitation requirements. 

There have been no changes to the 

protrusion limitation requirements and 

NHTSA did not receive comments 

regarding the existing protrusion 

limitation requirements in the 2014 

NPRM proposing side impact 

requirements for CRS. This requirement 

was also unchanged during the frontal 

test upgrade rulemaking, as no proposed 

changes or comments were received 

during that rulemaking either. 

Therefore, this request is out of scope 

for a petition for reconsideration. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81840 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

13The FMVSS No. 213a side impact final rule 

calculated an annual reduction of 3.7 fatalities and 

41 serious non-fatal injuries. 

14NHTSA estimated potentially 0.7 to 2.3 lives 

will be saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical 

severity injuries prevented annually when all CRSs 

in the fleet have the updated labels. 

15Per the December 5, 2023 final rule, harnesses 

will continue to be tested only with a Type 1 belt. 

Type 1 belt installation testing for harnesses was 

not meant to sunset in the final rule. 

III. Petitions for Reconsideration 

(FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and 

Agency Response 

a. Aligning Compliance Dates 

One petitioner, JPMA, urged NHTSA 

to align the required compliance dates 

for FMVSS No, 213 (December 5, 2024), 

FMVSS No. 213a (June 30, 2025) and 

FMVSS No. 213b (December 5, 2026) to 

avoid unnecessary costs. JPMA argued 

that the current compliance schedule 

would result in duplicative efforts 

regarding ‘‘instruction and label 

revisions, tooling modifications, model 

testing and certification processes, 

marketing materials and more, adding 

unnecessary costs and challenges.’’ 

JPMA explained that every modification 

triggers a change to the Universal 

Product Code. JPMA stated that such a 

change results in product histories and 

customer reviews starting over for new 

products, which reduces consumer 

confidence in established products and 

brands. JPMA stated that these changes 

also disrupt retailer relationships with 

changing product models that 

sometimes result in buybacks of older 

versions of the products. 

JPMA suggested that the compliance 

date for the changes to the three 

standards be aligned with the FMVSS 

No. 213b compliance date (December 5, 

2026) to avoid any unnecessary burdens 

and to minimize costs for 

manufacturers. As an alternative, JPMA 

suggested aligning the labeling changes 

of FMVSS No. 213 and the side impact 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213a to a 

December 5, 2025, compliance date. 

JPMA explained that this date is 

favorable for the manufacturers to avoid 

challenges of midyear product changes 

and would allow them five additional 

months to work on the new FMVSS No. 

213a side impact requirements. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is partially 

granting JPMA’s petition to align the 

FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b 

compliance dates. In the side impact 

final rule, we discussed that the agency 

did not see a reason to delay the 

compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a, or 

to shorten the lead time for FMVSS No. 

213b. The agency explained that making 

the compliance dates of the two rules 

coincide had some merit but the 

consequences of aligning the 

compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a 

with that of FMVSS No. 213b would 

delay the significant safety benefits 13 of 

side impact protection and thereby 

outweigh any such merit. 

With the option for early compliance, 

manufacturers have flexibility in 

deciding when to meet these updated 

standards. FMVSS No. 213b test results 

showed that some current CRS designs 

already meet performance requirements 

using the new sled text fixture. CRS 

manufacturers will have an opportunity 

for early compliance for their CRS 

models that need no change or only 

need small design changes, and if 

desired, to voluntarily comply with the 

FMVSS No. 213b requirements by the 

June 30, 2025, compliance date of 

FMVSS No. 213a to reduce their burden. 

To alleviate some of JPMA’s concerns 

on duplicative efforts due to the 

different compliance dates, we are 

aligning the updates to FMVSS No. 213 

from the frontal test upgrade final rule 

and the side impact final rule to a single 

compliance date of June 30, 2025. This 

action partially grants JPMA’s petition. 

The compliance date alignment will 

reduce unnecessary burdens through 

minimization of costs to manufacturers 

caused by multiple model number 

changes for a particular CRS design in 

a short period of time. This change 

provides an additional 6–7 months for 

manufacturers to align their labeling 

and registration card designs and launch 

them together along with the side 

impact changes. 

One of JPMA’s requests was to align 

the FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 

213a compliance dates to the December 

5, 2025, compliance date for FMVSS No. 

213b. As noted earlier, delaying the 

compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a 

would delay the significant safety 

benefits from improved side impact 

protection afforded to children seated in 

applicable CRSs. Additionally, delaying 

the FMVSS No. 213 labeling and 

registration card changes that were 

finalized in the December 5, 2023 

frontal test upgrade final rule notice by 

an additional year (December 5, 2025) 

would delay the safety benefits garnered 

from these updates.14 NHTSA is 

granting a little over 6 months delay in 

requiring compliance with the labeling 

and registration updates to reduce 

manufacturer’s burden of introducing 

products to the market multiple times. 

NHTSA believes this approach reduces 

burden to manufacturers without 

significantly impacting the realization of 

benefits from the updated labeling 

requirements and does not see need to 

further delay the benefits. Therefore, 

NHTSA is denying the petition to align 

the FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213a 

compliance date to December 2025. 

b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or 

Changing Sunset Date 

JPMA expressed concerns with 

retaining Type 1 belt testing until 2029 

without the opportunity for regulatory 

comment. JPMA claimed that the testing 

is duplicative considering that CRSs 

would already be tested with lower 

anchors and Type 2 belts. JPMA added 

that NHTSA should consider the time 

for product validation required by the 

other changes to FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a 

and 213b that will require new full 

evaluations and would delay 

development of future CRS models. 

JPMA argued that the data presented 

in the side impact final rule where 

NHTSA estimated ‘‘36% of the 2022 

light duty vehicle fleet are of model 

years (MY) 2000–2007 that do not have 

Type 2 belts in all rear seating 

positions’’ is faulty. JPMA noted that in 

a 2004 final rule (69 FR 70904) 

amending FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant 

crash protection,’’ the agency stated that 

approximately 77% of the passenger car 

fleet and 49% of the light truck and van 

(LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear 

center seat. JPMA argued that the data 

presented showed the sunset date of 

September 1, 2029, to remove Type 1 

seat belt testing, exceeds the objective 

stated in the final rule of 90 percent of 

vehicle having Type 2 belts in the rear 

center seat. 

JPMA urged NHTSA to remove the 

unnecessarily duplicative testing with 

Type 1 belts to move towards NHTSA’s 

stated goal of encouraging future CRS 

designs that take advantage of the 

shoulder belt portion of the seat belt to 

reduce excursions or to recalculate the 

sunset date based on more complete 

vehicle data. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is granting 

JPMA’s petition to remove Type 1 seat 

belt CRS (other than harnesses) 15

installation testing in FMVSS No. 213b. 

Additionally, NHTSA has decided to 

amend a labeling requirement relating to 

Type 1 seat belts in FMVSS No. 213 as 

part of the agency’s response to this 

petition. 

i. Removing Type 1 seat belt CRS 

installation testing from FMVSS No. 

213b. While JPMA pointed to a 2004 

final rule (69 FR 70904) where NHTSA 

indicated that ‘‘approximately 77% of 

the passenger car fleet and 49% of the 

light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 

2 belts in the rear center seat,’’ JPMA is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81841 

16This is analysis explained in the Final 

Economic Assessment of the 2004 final rule. 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA2004-18726-0002. 

17 Kahane, C.J., National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Lives saved by vehicle safety 

technologies and associated Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012—Passenger cars and 

LTVs—With reviews of 26 FMVSS and the 

effectiveness of their associated safety technologies 

in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes’’ (report 

No. DOT HS 812 069) (Jan. 2015). Washington, DC: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/View

Publication/812069. 

18 Vehicle registration data for passenger vehicles 

(cars and light trucks) were obtained from R.L. 

Polk’s National Vehicle Population Profile (NVPP). 

The Polk data set is a compilation of all passenger 

vehicles that have been registered in compliance 

with State requirements. (R.L. Polk is a foundation 

of IHS Markit automotive solutions.) 

19NHTSA stated in the December 2023 final rule 

that Type 1 seat belt installation tests become less 

necessary for safety with the continued reduction 

of the share of older vehicles (older than 2008 MY) 

having Type 1 belts. The Type 1 seat belt 

installation tests may be preventing CRS 

manufacturers from designing lap-shoulder belt 

paths that may function as a tether. This pseudotether would reduce a child’s head excursions, 

reducing injury severities and lowering the fatality 

risk for a larger portion of the market. Therefore, 

ending Type 1 seat belt installation tests when 90% 

of the fleet have Type 2 seat belts at all rear seating 

positions serves a good balance to further improve 

child safety. 

20NHTSA expects that if a CRS manufacturer 

chooses early compliance with FMVSS No. 213b, it 

would align to the FMVSS No. 213a compliance 

date (June 2025). For those models, Type 1 seat belt 

installation would no longer be evaluated. Given 

the new calculated estimates, the fleet with vehicles 

having Type 1 seat belts will have reached 10.3%, 

which is only slightly above the 10% target in the 

December 2023 final rule. Not all CRS 

manufacturers will choose to comply early so 

NHTSA believes this 10.3% is acceptable as this 

number will continue to decline as 2026 

approaches. 

incorrect in its understanding of that 

data. We note that this percentage did 

not reflect the vehicle fleet at the time 

but instead referred to the percentage of 

vehicles that provided Type 2 seat belts 

in model year (MY) 2000 vehicles.16

However, NHTSA recognizes that the 

estimates from the December 2023 final 

rule do not take into account vehicles 

older than MY 2008 that voluntarily 

provided Type 2 seat belts; therefore, 

the agency acknowledges that the 

estimates of Type 1 availability in the 

fleet (36 percent) should be reevaluated. 

To more accurately calculate the 

percentage of vehicles in the fleet 

without Type 2 seat belts, NHTSA 

calculated this percentage with 

estimates that include the percentages of 

vehicles that voluntarily provided Type 

2 seat belts in vehicles older than MY 

2008 to decide whether the sunset of 

Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing 

should be changed. Model year 2008 

vehicles or newer are required to have 

Type 2 belts in rear center seats, so there 

would be no Type 1 seat belts in the rear 

center seating position for those 

vehicles. 

NHTSA used a 2015 study 17 for 

estimated percentages of vehicles older 

than MY 2008 with rear center Type 1 

seat belts. The study determined 59.9 

percent of cars and 71.7 percent of light 

trucks and vans (LTVs) for MY 2007 and 

earlier had rear center Type 1 seat belts. 

NHTSA multiplied those shares by the 

2022 total vehicle registrations 18 to 

estimate the percentage of vehicles that 

have Type 1 belts in rear center seating 

positions. NHTSA estimated that 15 

percent of the light duty fleet in 2022 

had rear center Type 1 seat belts. 

NHTSA then applied vehicle 

survivability schedules to estimate 

future fleet estimates of vehicles with 

rear center Type 1 seat belts. Estimates 

show that in 2026, only 9 percent of 

vehicles in the fleet are expected to have 

rear center lap belts. 

TABLE 1—REAR CENTER TYPE 1 SEAT

BELT AVAILABILITY IN THE VEHICLE

FLEET BY YEAR

Year 

Rear center 

lap belt share 

(%) 

2022 .................................. 15.0 

2023 .................................. 13.4 

2024 .................................. 11.8 

2025 .................................. 10.3 

2026 .................................. 9.0 

In the side impact final rule, NHTSA 

noted that CRS testing with Type 1 seat 

belt attachment would end when 90 

percent of the fleet consists of vehicles 

with Type 2 seat belts at all rear seating 

positions.19 The new estimates show 

that by the time FMVSS No. 213b 

becomes mandatory on December 5, 

2026, the vehicle fleet would already 

have 91 percent of vehicles with Type 

2 seat belts in all rear seating positions. 

Therefore, the agency is removing the 

requirements from FMVSS No. 213b to 

test CRSs (other than harnesses) with 

Type 1 seat belt installations. If a 

manufacturer chooses to comply early 

with FMVSS No. 213b for a CRS model, 

that CRS model would not have to be 

tested with Type 1 seat belt 

installation.20

ii. Restoring Type 1 seat belt labeling 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213. In 

addition to granting JPMA’s petition 

above, NHTSA has also decided to 

amend FMVSS No. 213’s labeling 

requirements relating to Type 1 seat 

belts. Specifically, NHTSA is restoring 

paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) to its prior 

version, before the frontal test upgrade 

final rule was issued. 

Before the frontal test upgrade final 

rule, paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) required that 

CRSs have an installation diagram 

attached to the CRS showing the CRS 

installed with a Type 1 seat belt. During 

the process of amending the regulatory 

text for FMVSS No. 213 as part of the 

frontal test upgrade final rule, the 

agency deleted this requirement, making 

it so paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) simply read 

‘‘[Reserved].’’ Because the agency has 

decided to amend the lap belt 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213b as 

part of this petition for reconsideration 

response, but has not applied that same 

amendment to FMVSS No. 213, CRSs 

certified to FMVSS No. 213 up until 

2026 will still have to be certified with 

Type 1 belts. Accordingly, the agency 

feels it is necessary for CRSs certified to 

FMVSS No. 213 to have a label attached 

showing a diagram of the CRS installed 

with a Type 1 belt. For the reasons 

discussed above, the agency will be 

restoring this requirement in paragraph 

S5.5.2(l)(2) of FMVSS No. 213 as part of 

this final rule. 

c. Unit Conversion Consistency 

JPMA and Evenflo requested that 

FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b have a 

consistent metric conversion number for 

standards that specify 40-pounds, as 

currently the standards specify 18 kg, 

18.2 kg, and 18.4 kg in various places. 

JPMA and Evenflo encouraged a 

rounded 18 kg conversion even though 

it is not an exact conversion. Evenflo 

noted that the FMVSS No. 213 

regulation has long used 18 kg as the 

equivalent to 40 pounds in labeling 

requirements. As an alternative, the 

petitioners suggested using a more exact 

conversion (rounding to a single 

decimal place) of 18.1 kg. 

Agency Response: NHTSA has 

reviewed the regulatory text sections 

with inconsistent conversions from 40 

pounds to kilograms. NHTSA agrees 

that having a single conversion 

throughout the three standards is 

preferable. Therefore, NHTSA is 

granting this petition and is amending 

the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 213 

and FMVSS No. 213b to have an 18 kg 

value for the 40-pound conversion 

throughout the standards. As Evenflo 

pointed out, NHTSA has used this 

conversion in the current FMVSS No. 

213 regulatory text. Accordingly, the 

agency agrees that amendments to 

FMVSS No. 213 and 213b should use 

the same conversion. 

d. Remove Duplicative Language 

Evenflo requested removing 

duplicative language. Evenflo noted that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81842 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

21S5(b)(2) states ‘‘each add-on child restraint 

system manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that 

is recommended for children in a weight range that 

includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) 

regardless of height, or for children in a height 

range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters 

(mm) regardless of weight, shall meet the 

requirements in this standard and the applicable 

side impact protection requirements in Standard 

No. 213a (§ 571.213a).’’ 

22S5(g) states ‘‘Each add-on child restraint system 

manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is 

recommended for children in a weight range that 

includes weights less than 18 kilograms (40 

pounds) regardless of height, or for children in a 

height range that includes heights less than 1100 

millimeters regardless of weight, shall meet the 

requirements in this standard and the applicable 

side impact protection requirements in Standard 

No. 213a (§ 571.213a).’’ 

23The bolded language represents the language 

that was omitted from FMVSS No. 213b: ‘‘[For child 

restraints manufactured from February 27, 2014 to 

February 26, 2015, the following statement applies.] 

Child restraint systems equipped with internal 

harnesses to restrain the child and with 

components to attach to a child restraint anchorage 

system and for which the combined weight of the 

child restraint system and the maximum 

recommended child weight for use with internal 

harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, must be labeled with 

the following statement: ‘Do not use the lower 

anchors of the child restraint anchorage system 

(LATCH system) to attach this child restraint when 

restraining a child weighing more than * [*insert a 

recommended weight value in English and metric 

units such that the sum of the recommended weight 

value and the weight of the child restraint system 

does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the 

internal harnesses of the child restraint.’ ’’ 

S5 of FMVSS No. 213b has duplicative 

language in different subparagraphs 

(S5(b)(2) 21 and S5(g)) 22 which creates 

ambiguity with respect to what is 

intended and particularly as to whether 

there is any substantive difference in the 

two provisions. 

Evenflo also explained that given the 

discussion in Section XI(h) of the 

Preamble to the December 2023 Final 

Rule (88 FR 84514), Evenflo 

understands that the meaning of ‘‘up to 

18 kilograms (40 pounds)’’ is 

substantively synonymous with ‘‘less 

than 18 Kilograms (40 pounds). 

Agency Response: NHTSA is granting 

Evenflo’s petition to remove duplicative 

language in S5(b)(2) and S5(g) by 

removing S5(g). NHTSA is also 

amending S5(b)(2) to provide clearer 

language. The statement in S5(b)(2) will 

be changed from wording describing the 

CRS recommend weight and height as 

‘‘up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)’’ and 

‘‘up to 1100 millimeters (mm)’’ to ‘‘less 

than 18 kilograms (40 pounds)’’ and 

‘‘less than 1100 millimeters (mm),’’ 

respectively. 

e. Registration Card Guidelines 

JPMA requested guidance on the new 

registration information for consumers. 

JPMA suggested guidance could be in a 

revised Laboratory Test Procedure or a 

separate, dedicated document. JPMA 

argued that this guidance should be 

provided soon due to the short time 

period prior to the compliance date for 

the registration requirements. 

Agency Response: NHTSA is denying 

the petition to provide additional 

guidance on the registration card. The 

petitioners requested guidance on the 

new registration information for 

consumers. This request is for not a 

rulemaking action, and, therefore, is out 

of scope. 

NHTSA notes that the regulatory text 

describes the information that must be 

provided in the registration card. 

NHTSA did not receive any comments 

from CRS manufacturers seeking more 

guidance on this content. The goal of 

the changes to the registration form was 

to provide flexibility to manufacturers 

in how they communicate with 

consumers to increase registration rates. 

NHTSA notes that the registration forms 

that comply with current requirements 

would also comply with the new 

requirements. 

IV. Corrections to Regulatory Text 

In the frontal test upgrade final rule 

(88 FR 84515) published on December 5, 

2023, NHTSA inadvertently omitted 

important conditional language in the 

FMVSS No. 213b regulatory text. The 

omitted language creates an 

inconsistency within the standard, and 

several stakeholders have contacted 

NHTSA’s compliance office about this 

issue. The agency is correcting the 

regulatory text as part of this final rule 

to alleviate potential confusion. 

In the frontal test upgrade final rule, 

the agency inadvertently omitted 

conditional language from FMVSS No. 

213b S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii).23 This paragraph 

and subsection were carried over from 

FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2 

specifies a labeling requirement for 

CRSs. Specifically, paragraph 

S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) requires specific 

statements be present on the CRS 

explaining when and when not to 

secure the CRS with the vehicle’s child 

restraint anchorage system. This section 

has several conditional requirements, 

including a requirement that a statement 

be present that the child restraint 

anchorage system should not be used in 

certain scenarios for CRSs manufactured 

from February 27, 2014, to February 26, 

2015. The conditional language for this 

requirement—that the statement be 

present on CRSs manufactured in the 

time frame referenced above—appears 

in brackets in that paragraph of FMVSS 

No. 213. 

In establishing FMVSS No. 213b as 

part of the frontal test upgrade, much of 

the language from FMVSS No. 213 was 

carried over to FMVSS No. 213b. The 

agency’s intent was to carry over 

paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) as drafted in 

FMVSS 213 to FMVSS No. 213b. That 

did not happen, as the parenthetical 

indicating that the final labeling 

requirement in S5.5.2(1)(ii) only applied 

to seats manufactured between February 

27, 2014, and February 26, 2015, was 

not carried over. The result of that 

omission is that CRSs certified to 

FMVSS No. 213b now must include the 

statement instructing consumers when 

not to use the child restraint anchorage 

system, regardless of when the CRS was 

manufactured. This requirement creates 

inconsistency within the standard, as 

Tables S5.5.2(L)(3)(I)(B) and (C) provide 

different labeling requirements for the 

maximum weight limit for child 

restraint anchorage system use. For 

newly manufactured CRSs, these tables 

are what manufacturers should rely on 

in determining labeling requirements for 

weight thresholds for child restraint 

anchorage systems. However, because 

the conditional language was omitted 

from paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), there are 

now two conflicting labeling 

requirements for newly produced CRSs. 

This outcome is not what the agency 

intended, and the current language 

creates contradictory requirements 

within the standard. The agency 

believes that alleviating confusion with 

the standard will make it easier for 

manufacturers to comply with the 

standard. Additionally, this amendment 

will improve safety outcomes, as the 

current language would likely require 

that manufacturers have contradictory 

language printed on labels attached to 

CRSs. This conflicting language will 

only lead to confusion on the part of the 

consumer and may increase misuse 

rates. For the reasons listed above, 

NHTSA is amending FMVSS No. 

S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) by removing the last 

requirement listed in FMVSS No. 

S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii). We believe this is the 

proper way to address the issue 

discussed above, as no CRSs certified to 

FMVSS No. 213b will have been 

manufactured between 2014 and 2015. 

Accordingly, there is no reason to have 

a labeling requirement in FMVSS No. 

213b that applies only to seats produced 

during that time frame. 

V. Costs and Benefits 

The agency expects no safety benefits 

as a result of this final rule. However, 

it is worth noting that the agency 

believes addressing the inconsistency in 

current labeling requirements in FMVSS 

No. 213b will only result in positive 

safety outcomes. There will be a cost 

reduction from removing requirements 

to test CRS secured with Type 1 seat 

belts. The December 2023 final rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81843 

24 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979). 

estimated a temporary annual testing 

cost with Type 1 seat belts for 3 years 

of $5,198,000. This final rule will 

eliminate the estimated Type 1 seat belt 

installation test cost in FMVSS No. 

213b. 

VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date 

Because the amendments of this final 

rule responding to petitions for 

reconsideration are minor corrections, 

these amendments will be effective on 

November 8, 2024. The amendments 

will follow the compliance dates for the 

corresponding sections. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

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

14904, E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the potential 

impact of this final rule under E.O. 

12866, E.O. 14094, E.O. 13563, DOT 

Order 2100.6A and the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This NPRM is not 

considered to be significant under the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures.24

This final rule responds to petitions 

for reconsideration to the June 2022 

final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213a 

and the December 2023 final rule 

establishing FMVSS No. 213b. This final 

rule makes several changes to FMVSS 

No. 213, FMVSS No. 213a and FMVSS 

No. 213b; specifically, the minor 

changes provide increased clarity on 

what the standard requires and bring 

increased uniformity across the three 

standards. An additional amendment 

eliminates the Type 1 belt testing 

requirement for FMVSS No. 213 through 

2029; instead the agency will only be 

testing with a Type 2 belt starting in 

2026. Accordingly, the agency updated 

the costs in preparation of this final 

rule. The agency estimates a savings of 

$5,198,000 compared to the final rule 

because manufacturers will not have to 

conduct tests with Type 1 belts from 

2026 through 2029. More information 

can be found in the ‘‘Discussion of 

Benefits and Costs Associated with the 

Final Rule’’ section above. 

The minimal impacts of this final rule 

did not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions), unless the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Agencies must also provide a statement 

of the factual basis for this certification. 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

NHTSA estimates there to be 38 

manufacturers of child restraints, none 

of which are small businesses. Even if 

there were a small CRS manufacturer, 

the impacts of this rule will not be 

significant. The amendments made in 

this final rule are small, and if anything, 

the impact of the final rule will result 

in a net savings for a small business CRS 

manufacturer, due to the fact that it 

would not have to conduct testing with 

a Type 1 belt from 2026 through 2029 

to ensure compliance with FMVSS No. 

213. 

Federalism 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) and concluded that no 

additional consultation with States, 

local governments or their 

representatives is mandated beyond the 

rulemaking process. The agency has 

concluded that the rulemaking would 

not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant consultation 

with State and local officials or the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. This final rule would 

not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in two ways. First, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemption 

provision stating that, if NHTSA has 

established a standard for an aspect of 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment performance, a State may 

only prescribe or continue in effect a 

standard for that same aspect of 

performance if the State standard is 

identical to the Federal standard. 49 

U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 

command by Congress that preempts 

any non-identical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with 

a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. 

NHTSA rules can also preempt State 

law if complying with the FMVSS 

would render the motor vehicle 

manufacturers liable under State tort 

law. Because most NHTSA standards 

established by an FMVSS are minimum 

standards, a State common law tort 

cause of action that seeks to impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers will generally not be 

preempted. However, if and when such 

a conflict does exist—for example, when 

the standard at issue is both a minimum 

and a maximum standard—the State 

common law tort cause of action is 

impliedly preempted. See Geier v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861 (2000). 

Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has 

considered whether this final rule could 

or should preempt State common law 

causes of action. The agency’s ability to 

announce its conclusion regarding the 

preemptive effect of one of its rules 

reduces the likelihood that preemption 

will be an issue in any subsequent tort 

litigation. To this end, the agency has 

examined the nature (e.g., the language 

and structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this final rule and finds 

that this final rule, like many NHTSA 

rules, prescribes only a minimum safety 

standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not 

intend that this final rule preempt state 

tort law that would effectively impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers than that established by 

this final rule. Establishment of a higher 

standard by means of State tort law 

would not conflict with the minimum 

standard finalized in this document. 

Without any conflict, there could not be 

any implied preemption of a State 

common law tort cause of action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for 

the purposes of the NEPA. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Under the procedures established by 

the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq.), a Federal agency must request and 

receive approval from the Office of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Management and Budget (OMB) before 

it collects certain information from the 

public and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. 

The final rule amending FMVSS No. 

213 (88 FR 84514) included updates to 

NHTSA’s CRS registration requirements, 

which constituted an information 

collection. Included in that final rule 

was a notice soliciting comment on the 

information collection associated with 

the updated CRS registration 

requirements (OMB Control Number: 

2127–0576). No comments were 

received. NHTSA will submit the 

Information Collection Request to OMB 

for its review and approval of the 

revised collection of information. 

This final rule amends the CRS 

registration requirements adopted in the 

frontal test upgrade final rule by 

pushing the compliance date back to 

June of 2025. The change in the 

compliance date does not impact the 

information collection burden outlined 

in the frontal test upgrade final rule and 

none of the other amendments in this 

final rule create ‘‘collections of 

information’’ as defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

The UMBRA of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation, with base year of 1995). 

UMRA also requires an agency issuing 

an NPRM or final rule subject to the Act 

to select the ‘‘least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule.’’ 

This final rule would not result in a 

Federal mandate that will likely result 

in the expenditure by State, local or 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation, with base year of 1995). 

E.O. 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

agencies are required under E.O. 12988 

to make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation, as 

appropriate: (1) specifies in clear 

language the preemptive effect; (2) 

specifies in clear language the effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

final rule is discussed above. NHTSA 

notes further that there is no 

requirement that an individual submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceedings before 

they may file suit in court. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Under the NTTAA of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113), ‘‘all Federal agencies and 

departments shall use technical 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, using such technical standards 

as a means to carry out policy objectives 

or activities determined by the agencies 

and departments.’’ Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the International 

Organization for Standardization and 

the Society of Automotive Engineers. 

The NTTAA directs this agency to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. There are no 

voluntary consensus standards 

developed by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies pertaining to this final 

rule. 

Plain Language Requirement 

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to 

write all rules in plain language. 

Application of the principles of plain 

language includes consideration of the 

following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

NHTSA has considered these 

questions and attempted to use plain 

language in promulgating this final rule. 

Please inform the agency if you can 

suggest how NHTSA can improve its 

use of plain language. 

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The DOT assigns a RIN to each 

regulatory action listed in the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 

Regulatory Information Service Center 

publishes the Unified Agenda in April 

and October of each year. The RIN 

contained in the heading at the 

beginning of this notice may be used to 

find this action in the Unified Agenda. 

Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its decision-making 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

Anyone can search the electronic form 

of all comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– 

78). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Incorporation by Reference, 

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, 

and Tires. 

Regulatory Text 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set 

forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Section 571.213 is amended by 

■ a. In paragraph S4, revising the 

definition of ‘‘School bus child restraint 

system’’; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81845 

■ b. In paragraph S5.1.1 revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (a); 

■ c. Revising the headings of table 1 and 

table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs S5.2.4, 

S5.3.2.1, S5.5.2(f) introductory text, 

S5.5.2(f)(2), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i) and (ii), 

■ e. Adding paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs S5.6.1.7(a) 

introductory text, S5.6.1.7(b), S5.6.1.11, 

S5.6.2.2(a) introductory text, S5.6.2.2(b), 

S5.8.1(a), S5.8.1.1 introductory text, 

S5.8.2(a) introductory text, and S5.8.2.1 

introductory text. 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 571.213 Child restraint systems; 

Applicable unless a vehicle or child 

restraint system is certified to § 571.213b. 

* * * * * 

S4. Definitions 

* * * * * 

School bus child restraint system 

means an add-on child restraint system 

(including a harness) manufactured and 

sold only for use on school bus seats, 

that has a label conforming with 

S5.3.1(b). (This definition applies to 

child restraint systems manufactured on 

or after June 30, 2025.) 

* * * * * 

S5.1.1 Child restraint system 

integrity. When tested in accordance 

with S6.1, each child restraint system 

shall meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. 

(a) Exhibit no complete separation of 

any load bearing structural element and 

no partial separation exposing either 

surfaces with a radius of less than 6 mm 

or surfaces with protrusions greater than 

9 mm above the immediate adjacent 

surrounding contactable surface of any 

structural element of the system. 

* * * * * 

Table 1 to S5.1.3.1(a)—Add-On Child 

Restraints that Can Be Used ForwardFacing Manufactured Before June 30, 

2025 

* * * * * 

Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)—Add-On Child 

Restraints That Can Be Used ForwardFacing Manufactured After June 30, 

2025 

* * * * * 

S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any 

portion of a rigid structural component 

within or underlying a contactable 

surface, or any portion of a child 

restraint system surface that is subject to 

the requirements of S5.2.3 shall, with 

any padding or other flexible overlay 

material removed, have a height above 

any immediately adjacent restraint 

system surface of not more than 9 mm 

and no exposed edge with a radius of 

less than 6 mm. 

* * * * * 

S5.3.2.1 School bus child restraint 

systems manufactured on or after June 

30, 2025, shall be capable of meeting the 

requirements of this standard when 

installed by seat back mount, or, seat 

back mount and seat pan mount. 

* * * * * 

S5.5.2 * * * 

(f) For child restraint systems 

manufactured before June 30, 2025, 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section applies. 

For child restraint systems 

manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies. 

* * * * * 

(2) For child restraint systems 

manufactured on or after June 30, 2025: 

Statements or a combination of 

statements and pictograms specifying 

the manufacturer’s recommendations for 

the mass and height ranges (in English 

and metric units) of children who can 

safely occupy the system in each 

applicable mode (rear-facing, forward 

facing, booster), except manufacturers 

shall not recommend forward-facing use 

for child restraint systems with internal 

harnesses for children of masses less 

than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not 

recommend booster seats for children of 

masses less than 18 kg (40 lb). 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) As appropriate, the statements 

required by the following sections will 

be bulleted and placed after the 

statement required by 5.5.2(g)(1) in the 

following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), 

5.5.2(j), and 5.5.2(i). For child restraint 

systems manufactured on or after June 

30, 2025, the statements required by 

5.5.2(f) and 5.5.2(k)(2) need not be 

included. 

(ii) Secure this child restraint with the 

vehicle’s child restraint anchorage 

system, if available, or with a vehicle 

belt. [For car beds, harnesses, and belt 

positioning seats, the first part of the 

statement regarding attachment by the 

child restraint anchorage system is 

optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the 

second part of the statement regarding 

attachment by the vehicle belt does not 

apply.] 

* * * * * 

S5.5.2 * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) A seating position equipped with 

only a lap belt, as specified in the 

manufacturer’s instructions; and 

* * * * * 

S5.6.1.7. (a) For child restraint 

systems manufactured before June 30, 

2025, one of the following statements, 

inserting an address and a U.S. 

telephone number. If a manufacturer 

opts to provide a website on the 

registration card as permitted in Figure 

9a of this section, the manufacturer 

must include the statement in paragraph 

S5.6.1.7(a)(2): 

* * * * * 

(b) For child restraint systems 

manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, 

the child restraint system shall include 

statements informing the owner of the 

importance of registering the child 

restraint for recall purposes and 

instructing the owner how to register 

the child restraint at least by mail and 

by telephone, providing a U.S. 

telephone number. The following 

statement must also be provided: ‘‘For 

recall information, call the U.S. 

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at 

1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–

9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’ 

* * * * * 

S5.6.1.11 (a) For harnesses that are 

manufactured before June 30, 2025, for 

use on school bus seats, the instructions 

must include the following statement: 

‘‘WARNING! This restraint must only be 

used on school bus seats. Entire seat 

directly behind must be unoccupied or 

have restrained occupants.’’ The 

labeling requirement refers to a 

restrained occupant as: an occupant 

restrained by any user appropriate 

vehicle restraint or child restraint 

system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder 

belt, booster, child seat, harness . . .). 

(b) For school bus child restraint 

systems manufactured on or after June 

30, 2025, the instructions must include 

the following statement: ‘‘WARNING! 

This restraint must only be used on 

school bus seats. Entire seat directly 

behind must be unoccupied or have 

restrained occupants.’’ (The 

instruction’s reference to a ‘‘restrained 

occupant’’ refers to an occupant 

restrained by any user-appropriate 

vehicle restraint or child restraint 

system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder 

belt, booster seat or other child restraint 

system.) 

* * * * * 

S5.6.2.2. (a) For child restraint 

systems manufactured before June 30, 

2025, the instructions for each built in 

child restraint system other than a 

factory-installed restraint, shall include 

one of the following statements, 

inserting an address and a U.S. 

telephone number. If a manufacturer 

opts to provide a website on the 

registration card as permitted in Figure 

9a of this section, the manufacturer 

must include the statement in 

S5.6.2.2(a)(2): 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) For child restraint systems 

manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, 

the instructions for each built-in child 

restraint system other than a factoryinstalled restraint shall include 

statements informing the owner of the 

importance of registering the child 

restraint for recall purposes and 

instructing the owner how to register 

the child restraint at least by mail and 

by telephone, providing a U.S. 

telephone number. The following 

statement must also be provided: ‘‘For 

recall information, call the U.S. 

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at 

1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–

9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’ 

* * * * * 

S5.8.1 Attached registration form. 

(a) For child restraint systems 

manufactured before June 30, 2025, each 

child restraint system, except a factoryinstalled built-in restraint system, shall 

have a registration form attached to any 

surface of the restraint that contacts the 

dummy when the dummy is positioned 

in the system in accordance with S6.1.2 

of Standard 213. 

* * * * * 

S5.8.1.1 Upgraded attached 

registration form. For child restraint 

systems manufactured on or after June 

30, 2025, each child restraint system, 

except a factory-installed built-in 

restraint system, shall have a 

registration form attached to any surface 

of the restraint that contacts the dummy 

when the dummy is positioned in the 

system in accordance with S6.1.2 of 

Standard 213. The form shall not have 

advertising or any information other 

than that related to registering the child 

restraint system. 

* * * * * 

S5.8.2 * * * 

(a) Each electronic registration form 

provided for child restraint systems 

manufactured before June 30, 2025, 

shall: 

* * * * * 

S5.8.2.1 Upgraded electronic 

registration form (a) Each electronic 

registration form provided for child 

restraint systems manufactured on or 

after June 30, 2025, shall: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.213a is amended by 

revising paragraphs S6.1.1(a)(1), S9.2(d), 

and S9.3(d) to read as follows: 

§ 571.213a Standard No. 213a; Child 

restraint systems—side impact protection. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.1 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) The test device is a SISA 

consisting of a sliding seat, with one 

seating position, and a simulated door 

assembly as described in ‘‘NHTSA 

Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 

213a—Side impact No. NHTSA–213a– 

2021’’ (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 571.5). The simulated door assembly is 

rigidly attached to the floor of the SISA 

and the sliding seat is mounted on rails 

to allow it to move relative to the floor 

of the SISA in the direction 

perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA is 

mounted on a dynamic test platform so 

that the SORL of the seat is 10 ±1 

degrees from the perpendicular 

direction of the test platform travel. 

* * * * * 

S9.2 * * * 

(d) After the steps specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, rotate each 

of the dummy’s legs downwards in the 

plane parallel to the dummy’s 

midsagittal plane until the limb contacts 

a surface of the child restraint or the 

SISA. Rotate each of the dummy’s arms 

downwards in the plane parallel to the 

dummy’s midsagittal plane until the 

arm is engaged on the detent that 

positions the arm at a 25-degree angle 

with respect to the thorax. For child 

restraint systems with a fixed or 

movable surface that does not allow the 

dummy’s arm to be positioned at a 25- 

degree angle, rotate each dummy arm 

downwards in the plane parallel to the 

dummy’s midsagittal plane until the 

arm contacts a surface of the child 

restraint system or the standard seat 

assembly. 

S9.3 * * * 

(d) After the steps specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, rotate each 

dummy arm downwards in the plane 

parallel to the dummy’s midsagittal 

plane until the limb is positioned at a 

25-degree angle with respect to the 

thorax. For child restraint systems with 

a fixed or movable surface that does not 

allow the dummy’s arm to be positioned 

at a 25-degree angle, rotate each dummy 

arm downwards in the plane parallel to 

the dummy’s midsagittal plane until the 

arm contacts a surface of the child 

restraint system or the standard seat 

assembly. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 571.213b is amended by 

■ a. Revising paragraph S5(b)(2); 

■ b. Removing paragraph S5(g); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs S5.1.1 

introductory text, S5.1.1.(a), table 2 in 

paragraph S5.1.3.1(a), S5.2.4, table 4 in 

paragraph S5.3.2, S5.5.2(f), 

S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), S5.5.5(f), and S7.1.2(d) 

and (e). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 571.213b Standard No. 213b; Child 

restraint systems; Mandatory applicability 

beginning December 5, 2026. 

* * * * * 

S5 * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Each add-on child restraint system 

manufactured for use in motor vehicles, 

that is recommended for children in a 

weight range that includes weights less 

than 18 kilograms (40 pounds) 

regardless of height, or for children in 

a height range that includes heights less 

than 1100 millimeters (mm) regardless 

of weight, shall meet the requirements 

in this standard and the applicable side 

impact protection requirements in 

Standard No. 213a (§ 571.213a). 

* * * * * 

S5.1 * * * 

S5.1.1 Child restraint system 

integrity. When tested in accordance 

with S6.1, each child restraint system 

shall meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section. 

(a) Exhibit no complete separation of 

any load bearing structural element and 

no partial separation exposing either 

surfaces with a radius of less than 6 mm 

or surfaces with protrusions greater than 

9 mm above the immediate adjacent 

surrounding contactable surface of any 

structural element of the system. 

* * * * * 

S5.1.3.1 * * * 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 2 TO S5.1.3.1(a)—ADD-ON CHILD RESTRAINTS THAT CAN BE USED FORWARD-FACING

When this type of child restraint system Is tested in accordance 

with— 

These excursion 

limits apply 

Explanatory note: in the test specified in 

2nd column, the excursion requirement 

must be met when the child restraint system is attached to the test seat assembly 

in the manner described below, subject to 

certain conditions 

All harnesses ............................................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) .................... Head 813 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with lap belt; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is attached. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81847 

TABLE 2 TO S5.1.3.1(a)—ADD-ON CHILD RESTRAINTS THAT CAN BE USED FORWARD-FACING—Continued 

When this type of child restraint system Is tested in accordance 

with— 

These excursion 

limits apply 

Explanatory note: in the test specified in 

2nd column, the excursion requirement 

must be met when the child restraint system is attached to the test seat assembly 

in the manner described below, subject to 

certain conditions 

Restraints designed for use by children 

with physical disabilities.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) .................... Head 813 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with lap and shoulder belt; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is attached. 

School bus child restraint systems ............. S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) .................... Head 813 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with seat back mount, or seat 

back and seat pan mounts. 

Booster seats .............................................. S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii) ........................ Head 813 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no 

tether is attached. 

Child restraint systems other than harnesses, restraints designed for use by 

children with physical disabilities, school 

bus child restraint systems, and booster 

seats.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B) .................... Head 813 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with a lap and shoulder belt; 

without a tether attached. 

Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage system; without a tether attached. 

Child restraint systems other than harnesses, restraints designed for use by 

children with physical disabilities, school 

bus child restraint systems.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), 

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C).

Head 720 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with a lap and shoulder belt, with 

a tether attached. 

Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage system, with a tether 

attached. 

Child restraint systems equipped with a 

fixed or movable surface described in 

S5.2.2.2 that has belts that are not an integral part of that fixed or movable surface.

S6.1.2(a)(2) ............................ Head 813 mm; Knee 

915 mm.

Attached with lap and shoulder belt or 

lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage system; no tether is attached. 

* * * * * 

S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any 

portion of a rigid structural component 

within or underlying a contactable 

surface, or any portion of a child 

restraint system surface that is subject to 

the requirements of S5.2.3 shall, with 

any padding or other flexible overlay 

material removed, have a height above 

any immediately adjacent restraint 

system surface of not more than 9 mm 

and no exposed edge with a radius of 

less than 6 mm. 

* * * * * 

S5.3.2 * * * 

TABLE 4 FOR S5.3.2 MEANS OF INSTALLATION FOR CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

Type of add-on child restraint system 

Type 1 

seat belt 

assembly 

plus a tether 

anchorage, 

if needed 

Type 2 

seat belt 

assembly 

plus a tether 

anchorage, 

if needed 

Type 2 

seat belt 

assembly 

Lower 

anchorages 

of the child 

restraint 

anchorage 

system 

plus a tether, 

if needed 

Lower 

anchorages 

of the child 

restraint 

anchorage 

system 

Seat back 

mount, or, 

seat back 

mount, and, 

seat pan 

mount 

School bus child restraint systems .......... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X 

Harnesses ................................................ X ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Car beds .................................................. ........................ ........................ X ........................ ........................ ........................

Rear-facing restraints ............................... ........................ ........................ X ........................ X ........................

Booster seats ........................................... ........................ ........................ X ........................ ........................ ........................

All other child restraint systems ............... ........................ X X X X ........................

* * * * * 

S5.5.2 * * * 

(f) Statements or a combination of 

statements and pictograms specifying 

the manufacturer’s recommendations for 

the weight and height ranges (in English 

and metric units) of children who can 

safely occupy the system in each 

applicable mode (rear-facing, forward 

facing, booster), except manufacturers 

shall not recommend that child restraint 

systems with internal harnesses be used 

forward-facing with children of weights 

less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not 

recommend that booster seats be used 

by children of weights less than 18 kg 

(40 lb). 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Secure this child restraint with the 

vehicle’s child restraint anchorage 

system, if available, or with a vehicle 

belt. [For car beds, harnesses, and belt 

positioning seats, the first part of the 

statement regarding attachment by the 

child restraint anchorage system is 

optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the 

second part of the statement regarding 

attachment by the vehicle belt does not 

apply.] 

* * * * * 

S5.5.5 * * * 

(f) Statements or a combination of 

statements and pictograms specifying 

the manufacturer’s recommendations for 

the weight and height ranges (in English 

and metric units) of children who can 

safely occupy the system in each 

applicable mode (rear-facing, forward 

facing, booster), except manufacturers 

shall not recommend forward-facing 

child restraint systems with internal 

harnesses for children of weights less 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
81848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not 

recommend booster seats for children of 

weights less than 18 kg (40 lb). 

* * * * * 

S7.1.2 * * * 

(d) A child restraint system that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified weight range that 

includes any children having a weight 

greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb) but not 

greater than 18 kg (40 lb) regardless of 

height, or by children in a specified 

height range that includes any children 

whose height is greater than 870 mm but 

not greater than 1100 mm regardless of 

weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, 

subpart P dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old 

dummy). 

(e) A child restraint system that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified weight range that 

includes any children having a weight 

greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater 

than 22.7 kg (50 lb) regardless of height, 

or by children in a specified height 

range that includes any children whose 

height is greater than 1100 mm but not 

greater than 1250 mm regardless of 

weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, 

subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6- year-old 

dummy). 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.5. 

Sophie Shulman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22448 Filed 10–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[Docket No. 241003–0261] 

RIN 0648–BM74 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 

Repair and Replacement of the Q8 

Bulkhead at Naval Station Norfolk 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS, upon request from the 

U.S. Navy (Navy), hereby issues 

regulations to govern the unintentional 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

the Q8 Bulkhead repair and replacement 

project at Naval Station (NAVSTA) 

Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia over the 

course of 5 years (i.e., 2025–2029) (the 

Project). These regulations, which allow 

for the issuance of a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during the 

described activities and specified 

timeframes, prescribe the permissible 

methods of taking and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on marine mammal species or 

stocks and their habitat, as well as 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

January 1, 2025, through December 31, 

2029. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy’s 

application and any supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-us-navysconstruction-activities-q8-bulkheadnaval-station. 

In case of problems accessing these 

documents, please call the contact listed 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Cockrell, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401 or 

craig.cockrell@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Regulatory 

Action 

This rule establishes a framework 

under the authority of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow for the 

authorization of take of marine 

mammals incidental to the Navy’s 

construction activities related to the 

Project at NAVSTA Norfolk. 

We received an application from the 

Navy requesting 5-year regulations and 

authorization to take multiple species of 

marine mammals. Take is anticipated to 

occur incidental to impact and vibratory 

pile driving, by Level B harassment 

only. Please see Background below for 

definitions of harassment. 

Legal Authority for the Action 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region for up to 5 years if, 

after notice and public comment, the 

agency makes certain findings and 

issues regulations that set forth 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to that activity and other means of 

effecting the ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ on the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (see the 

discussion below in the Mitigation 

section), as well as monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, and the 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

216 subpart I, provide the legal basis for 

issuing this rule containing 5-year 

regulations, and for any subsequent 

letters of authorization (LOAs). As 

directed by this legal authority, this 

final rule contains mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Summary of Major Provisions Within 

the Rule 

Following is a summary of the major 

provisions of this final rule regarding 

Navy construction activities. These 

measures include: 

• Required monitoring of the 

construction areas to detect the presence 

of marine mammals before beginning 

construction activities; 

• Shutdown of construction activities 

under certain circumstances to avoid 

injury of marine mammals; and 

• Soft start for impact pile driving to 

allow marine mammals the opportunity 

to leave the area prior to beginning 

impact pile driving at full power. 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions Section 101(a). Sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary 

of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 

allow, upon request, the incidental, but 

not intentional, taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified activity (other 

than commercial fishing) within a 

specified geographical region if certain 

findings are made and either regulations 

are proposed or, if the taking is limited 

to harassment, a notice of a proposed 

IHA is provided to the public for 

review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses, where 

relevant. Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES