[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81836-81848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0058]
RIN 2127-AM64


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; FMVSS No. 213, ``Child 
Restraint Systems,'' FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child Restraint Systems--Side 
Impact Protection,'' and FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child Restraint Systems''--
Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of 
the June 2022 final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213a and the December 2023 final rule establishing 
FMVSS No. 213b. This final rule grants petitions to incorporate a dummy 
positioning procedure for shield-type child restraint systems (CRSs), 
clarify test procedure for CRSs with certain types of side impact 
technologies, remove testing CRSs installed with lap belt only in 
frontal sled tests, and correct inconsistencies in the regulatory text 
and figures in FMVSS Nos. 213a and 213b. This final rule also partially 
grants the petition to align compliance dates between the standards. 
All other requests are denied.

DATES: 
    Effective date: November 8, 2024.
    Reconsideration date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration 
of this rule, your petition must be received by November 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer 
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions 
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your 
complete submission, including the information you claim to be 
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you 
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed 
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address 
given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further 
information in

[[Page 81837]]

the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this preamble.
    Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone can 
search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go 
to www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow the 
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call 
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 
(202) 366-6345). For legal issues, you may call Matthew Filpi, Office 
of Chief Counsel (telephone: (202) 366-2992). Address: National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency 
Response
    a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With Fixed, Adjustable and 
Configurable Side Impact Technologies
    b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed or Movable Surface To 
Restrain the Child in FMVSS No. 213a
    c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting Angle Tolerance Correction
    d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and Protrusion Limits in 
FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b
    e. Removing ``At NHTSA's Option'' Phrase in S6.1.2
    f. Removing 45 Degree CRS Angle at Completion of Test 
Requirement
    g. Correcting Error on Table 1 to S5.1.6
    h. Clarifications
III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and 
Agency Response
    a. Aligning Compliance Dates
    b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or Changing Sunset Date
    c. Unit Conversion Consistency
    d. Remove Duplicative Language
    e. Registration Card Guidelines
IV. Correction to Regulatory Text
V. Costs and Benefits
VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    On June 30, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule (side impact final 
rule) (87 FR 39234) amending FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint 
systems,'' to establish side impact performance requirements for CRSs 
designed to seat children weighing up to 18.1 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds 
(lbs)), or for children in a height range that includes heights up to 
1100 millimeters (43.3 inches). The side impact performance 
requirements were established in the new FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child 
restraint systems--side impact protection,'' which is referenced by 
Standard No. 213.
    On December 5, 2023, NHTSA published a final rule (frontal test 
upgrade final rule) (88 FR 84514) amending FMVSS No. 213 and adding 
FMVSS No. 213b, ``Child restraint systems.'' The amendments to FMVSS 
No. 213 modernize the standard by updating the CRS owner registration 
program, labeling requirements instructing consumers on correct use of 
child restraints, requirements for add-on school bus-specific child 
restraint systems, and provisions for NHTSA's use of test dummies in 
NHTSA compliance tests. The establishment of FMVSS No. 213b will update 
the standard seat assembly on which NHTSA tests child restraint systems 
for compliance with frontal crash performance requirements.
    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the side impact 
final rule,\1\ from Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc. (Cybex products 
distributor) and Evenflo (Goodbaby International subsidiary) Inc. 
(Evenflo). NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration \2\ of the 
frontal test upgrade final rule from Juvenile Products Manufacturers 
Association (JPMA) and Evenflo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitions have been docketed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0051-0004.
    \2\ Petitions have been docketed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0040-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners to the side impact final rule requested 
clarifications on dummy positioning test procedures for shield-type 
CRSs and on test procedures for CRSs that have adjustable and 
configurable technologies for side impact. The petitioners also 
requested minor corrections to the regulatory text of the adopted 
standard. NHTSA is granting the petitions to incorporate a dummy 
positioning procedure for shield-type CRSs, correct inconsistencies in 
the side impact seat assembly mounting angle tolerances in the 
regulatory text and figures, and correct inconsistent units between the 
standards. NHTSA is denying the remaining requests from the two 
petitioners.
    The petitioners to the frontal test upgrade final rule requested 
the following: (1) consolidations of the compliance dates \3\ of FMVSS 
Nos. 213, 213a and 213b, (2) removal of tests with CRS installation 
using Type 1 seat belt or an earlier sunset date for testing CRSs 
installed with the Type 1 seat belt, (3) minor corrections to the 
regulatory text of the adopted standards, and, (4) guidance on the new 
requirements for the registration card. NHTSA is partially granting the 
request to align the compliance dates and granting the request to 
remove Type 1 seat belt testing. NHTSA is also making minor corrections 
to the regulatory text identified by the petitioners. The agency is 
denying the request for rulemaking to provide guidance on the new 
registration card requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The compliance date is the date that the applicable products 
must comply with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency Responses

a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With Fixed, Adjustable, and 
Configurable Side Impact Technologies

    Cybex requested NHTSA clarify how fixed, adjustable, and 
configurable side impact technologies will be tested in future annual 
compliance test programs. Cybex explained that previous NHTSA 
interpretations have deemed ``belt tensioning bars, additional straps 
and support legs'' as supplemental devices. Cybex further noted that 
supplemental devices are not used during compliance testing per the 
specifications in S6.1.2 of FMVSS No. 213 that no supplemental devices 
be used to install CRSs.
    Cybex explained that neither the dynamic test procedure nor past 
interpretations Cybex reviewed provide guidance on other aspects of 
adjusting or use of a child restraint beyond S6.1.2. This section of 
the standard requires CRS installation in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions provided with the CRS.
    Cybex asked NHTSA for clarification on (1) whether an adjustment 
specified in the manufacturer's instruction is allowed to be made prior 
to or after securing the CRS to the side impact seat assembly (SISA), 
and (2) whether an adjustment of a technology that is part of the CRS 
is allowed to be made prior to testing according to this supplemental 
device requirement.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Cybex's petition to provide 
informal guidance on the testing procedure

[[Page 81838]]

outlined in FMVSS No. 213a. Under 49 CFR 553.35, petitions for 
reconsideration must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an 
explanation why compliance with the rule is not practicable, is 
unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. We do not believe that 
Cybex has met its burden of explaining why the FMVSS No. 213a test 
procedure is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public 
interest. Instead, Cybex's petition simply requests guidance on how 
NHTSA would test CRSs under FMVSS No. 213a. NHTSA does not provide 
informal guidance in responses to petitions for reconsideration.
    Although we will not be providing guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a's 
test procedures apply to the adjustable side impact technology 
discussed by Cybex, we do think this issue is worth addressing. Instead 
of addressing it here in the form of guidance, we plan to initiate a 
rulemaking on this issue. FMVSS No. 213a is new requirement that does 
not take effect until June of 2025. Accordingly, when NHTSA published 
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2014 proposing side impact 
protection requirements for child restraint systems, the agency could 
not predict how child restraint manufacturers would choose to comply 
with the standard. Additionally, no commenters discussed this 
technology during the NPRM stage. NHTSA conducted rigorous testing to 
ensure that the requirements of FMVSS No. 213a were practicable, but as 
is the case with many of our standards, manufacturers innovate to meet 
the requirements of our standards. This is the case with the adjustable 
side impact technology Cybex discusses in its petition for 
reconsideration. Accordingly, the agency could not have considered how 
to test with this technology since it did not exist when the 
requirements were proposed and how popular these designs would become.
    Because the agency has limited test experience with adjustable side 
impact technology, we cannot yet speak to any safety benefits 
associated with it. The agency plans to continue its research and 
testing to determine if and how FMVSS No. 213a should be amended to 
accommodate for this technology. The agency also plans to consider 
potential misuse and how restraints with this technology perform under 
the test procedures outlined in FMVSS No. 213a with and without the 
technology deployed.
    For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is denying Cybex's request 
to provide guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a's test procedures apply to 
deployable side impact technology.

b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed or Movable Surface To Restrain 
the Child in FMVSS No. 213a

    Cybex noted that the current FMVSS No. 213 allows the use of a 
forward restraining surface (e.g., shield) in lieu of a harness. 
However, Cybex states the side impact final rule did not consider CRSs 
that use a forward restraining surface. Cybex argued that the 25-degree 
dummy arm positioning required in the new FMVSS No. 213a standard could 
not be met in forward facing CRSs with restraining surfaces. 
Accordingly, Cybex requested clarification regarding test dummy arm 
positioning for CRSs with restraining surfaces. Cybex also asked 
whether placing the dummy's arm above the forward restraining surface 
would be considered as ``inhibiting the torso or head movement.'' Cybex 
noted that if this interaction is considered as ``inhibiting the torso 
or head movement,'' it requested clarification on the allowable limb 
position.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Cybex provided a picture of a shield-type CRS with a dummy 
to exemplify. The petition can be found at Docket No. NHTSA-2022-
0051-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: NHTSA is granting Cybex's request to specify arm 
placement in FMVSS No. 213a testing for shield-type CRSs where the arm 
cannot be placed at a 25-degree angle. As background, FMVSS No. 213a 
specifies a procedure in S9.2(d) and S9.3(d) to position the Q3s 
dummy's arm in CRSs that can be used forward-facing and/or rear-facing. 
The arm is rotated downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's 
midsagittal plane until the arm engages the Q3s detent that positions 
the arm at a 25-degree angle with respect to the thorax. However, some 
CRS designs equipped with a fixed or movable surface \5\ that restrain 
the dummy \6\ may prevent the arm from engaging the detent to position 
the arm at a 25-degree angle with respect to the thorax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fixed or movable CRS surfaces are described in S5.2.2.2 of 
FMVSS No. 213 and S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 213b.
    \6\ There are no CRSs with a fixed or movable surface that 
restrain the child in the U.S. market currently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 10.2.2(d) of FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b specifies positioning 
the arm of dummies by rotating the limb downwards in the plane parallel 
to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of 
the CRS or the standard seat assembly. This test procedure applies to 
all the dummies used in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b. The procedure provides 
for consistent positioning of the dummy's arms for all CRSs, including 
the ones equipped with a fixed or movable surface that restrain the 
child in FMVSS No. 213.
    In response to Cybex's petition, NHTSA is specifying use of the 
FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b arm positioning procedure for the Q3s dummy in 
FMVSS No. 213a for those CRSs equipped with a fixed or movable surface 
that restrain the child and in which the specified 25-degree arm angle 
cannot be reached. The 25-degree angle is specified for side impact 
testing, positioning the arm to expose the thorax to directly contact 
the intruding door or CRS side structure. This arm positioning 
procedure produces a more repeatable test. Utilizing the FMVSS Nos. 213 
and 213b arm positioning procedure for positioning the Q3s dummy in 
FMVSS No. 213a will still achieve NHTSA's goal to position the arm in a 
manner that exposes the thorax so that it directly contacts the 
intruding door or CRS side structure during 213a testing. An arm 
positioned at a 25-degree angle or (slightly) higher would likely not 
be considered to ``inhibit the torso or head movement.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the CRS design results in a Q3s dummy arm position high 
enough that it interacts with the head (inhibiting head movement) 
during testing, the CRS design may need to be changed to prevent 
this from happening. NHTSA does not expect the arm position to be 
high enough to interact with the dummy's head in known shield-type 
CRSs. But NHTSA will evaluate this issue on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting Angle Tolerance Correction

    FMVSS No. 213a adopted requirements to attach the SISA to the sled 
test platform so the Seat Orientation Reference Line (SORL) \8\ of the 
seat is at a 10-degree angle counter-clockwise from the perpendicular 
to the travel direction of the test platform. Evenflo noted that the 
regulatory text has a discrepancy in the angle tolerance specified in 
S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. Section 6.1.1(a)(1) specifies the SISA is 
mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL is 10 <plus-
minus>0.1 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform 
travel. Figure 2A specifies this angle to be 10 <plus-minus>1 degrees. 
Evenflo requested clarification on the discrepancy between the text and 
the drawing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal 
line through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1 to Sec.  571.213a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The <plus-minus>0.1 tolerance of the SISA mounting 
angle specified in S6.1.1(a)(1) is incorrect. NHTSA is granting 
Evenflo's petition to correct the discrepancy in the mounting angle 
tolerance between S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. NHTSA is specifying the

[[Page 81839]]

correct tolerance in S6.1.1(a)(1) so that it indicates an angle of 10 
<plus-minus>1 degrees, making it consistent with Figure 2A.

d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and Protrusion Limits in FMVSS 
Nos. 213, 213b and 213a

    Evenflo requested NHTSA specify the protrusion dimensions 
requirements existing in both FMVSS No. 213 and 213a in the same units. 
Evenflo noted that FMVSS No. 213 uses inches while FMVSS No. 213a uses 
millimeters. Evenflo argued that this discrepancy can lead to confusion 
in application and interpretation of the standard.
    Agency Response: NHTSA agrees that the units for the same 
protrusion dimension requirements should be the same in FMVSS Nos. 213 
(S5.1.1(a) and S5.2.4), 213a (S5.1.1(a) and S5.1.4) and 213b (S5.1.1(a) 
and S5.2.4). NHTSA is granting this petition and will change the units 
of FMVSS No. 213 and 213b to millimeters to be consistent with FMVSS 
No. 213a.

e. Removing ``at NHTSA's Option'' Phrase in S6.1.2

    Evenflo sought clarification regarding the phrase ``at NHTSA's 
option'' in the FMVSS No. 213b Dynamic Test Procedure section (S6.1.2). 
Evenflo explained that the section is followed by test procedures with 
each of the attachment methods. Evenflo added that none of the 
attachments are optional for a manufacturer when it is certifying 
compliance with FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213a. Evenflo argued that if ``at 
NHTSA's option'' refers to test options available to NHTSA as part of 
its annual test compliance program, then the language is more 
appropriate for test procedures and not in the regulation.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Evenflo's petition to remove the 
phrase ``at NHTSA's option'' from the regulatory text. This phrase is 
included to make clear that NHTSA may conduct the compliance test with 
a CRS attached in any or all of its attachment modes. NHTSA notes that 
the agency's safety standards specify the test conditions and 
procedures that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the 
vehicle or equipment (such as CRSs) being tested for compliance to the 
safety standard. While manufacturers are required to certify their 
products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested in 
accordance with the standard and exercise due care in doing so, they 
are not specifically required to test their CRSs the way NHTSA tests 
child restraints in a compliance test.

f. Removing 45 Degrees CRS Angle at Completion of Test Requirement

    Evenflo questioned whether the requirement in S5.1.1 (c) that does 
not allow the angle between the system's back support for the child and 
the system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the 
completion of the test is needed as it is already required in the FMVSS 
No. 213 frontal dynamic test. Evenflo also argued that that the frontal 
force (fore/aft vehicle direction) component \9\ in the side impact 
test is small compared to the side (lateral vehicle direction) 
component, and, small compared to the frontal component of the frontal 
crash in FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The sled test forces acting upon a CRS can be represented as 
a 3-dimentional force vector. The portion of that force vector that 
is parallel to the fore/aft (frontal) ``vehicle'' direction is the 
frontal component of the force vector. The FMVSS No. 213a sliding 
seat test fixture (representing the vehicle seat) is at a 10 degree 
angle to the sled's direction of travel during the test. Defining 
test forces based upon a coordinate system fixed to the seat 
fixture, there are frontal, lateral, and vertical components to the 
forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying this petition, and will retain 
the S5.1.1 (c) requirement. While the side impact test has a small 
longitudinal component, NHTSA believes this requirement will ensure CRS 
integrity in a broader range of crash environments. While the agency 
has not seen any CRSs fail to meet this requirement during our testing, 
the CRS market is constantly evolving, with manufacturers introducing 
new designs into the market every year. This requirement will ensure 
that future designs perform adequately in a side impact crash as well 
as a frontal crash.

g. Correcting Error on Table 1 in Paragraph S5.1.6

    Evenflo commented that Table 1 in paragraph S5.1.6 (installation) 
does not match the means of installation indicated in S6.1.2.
    Agency Response: After reviewing the table example Evenflo showed 
in its petition, we note that the table in Evenflo's petition was taken 
from the web version of the June 2022 final rule in the docket 
system,\10\ and the web version had a formatting error. However, the 
June 2022 final rule in the Federal Register \11\ and the electronic 
Code of Federal Regulations \12\ display the correct table. Since 
receiving Evenflo's comment, the docket system has corrected the table 
formatting and now displays the correct table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ www.regulations.gov.
    \11\ Web Version: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/06/30/2022-13658/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-child-restraint-systems-child-restraint-systems-side-impact PDF Version: 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-06-30/pdf/2022-13658.pdf.
    \12\ Link to the electronic code of federal regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.213a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Clarifications

    Evenflo requested several clarifications regarding the contactable 
surfaces and protrusion limitation requirements. These clarification 
requests included:
    (1) If materials such as soft goods, padding, energy absorbing 
materials or elements, or flexible materials are permanently affixed to 
another component, whether the underlying component is considered 
contactable.
    (2) Whether the portion of the shell that is adjacent to the 
headrest is considered contactable in CRSs with an adjustable headrest.
    (3) Whether a contactable surface varies based on the size of the 
test dummy or associated with the largest dummy for a given use 
configuration.
    (4) Whether energy absorbing materials integrated to the system's 
structures are considered padding and flexible overlay materials and 
whether they would be removed prior to inspection.
    (5) Whether energy absorbing material that is attached with 
mechanical fasteners (push pins, tape or glue, etc.) is considered 
padding or part of the structure to be evaluated for the protrusion 
limitations.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Evenflo's clarifications request. 
The protrusion limitation requirements in question are not specific to 
FMVSS No. 213a and have been present in FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.4) since 
1979. The 2014 NPRM proposing the side impact requirements for FMVSS 
No. 213 (79FR4570) proposed the same existing protrusion limitation 
requirements. There have been no changes to the protrusion limitation 
requirements and NHTSA did not receive comments regarding the existing 
protrusion limitation requirements in the 2014 NPRM proposing side 
impact requirements for CRS. This requirement was also unchanged during 
the frontal test upgrade rulemaking, as no proposed changes or comments 
were received during that rulemaking either. Therefore, this request is 
out of scope for a petition for reconsideration.

[[Page 81840]]

III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and Agency 
Response

a. Aligning Compliance Dates

    One petitioner, JPMA, urged NHTSA to align the required compliance 
dates for FMVSS No, 213 (December 5, 2024), FMVSS No. 213a (June 30, 
2025) and FMVSS No. 213b (December 5, 2026) to avoid unnecessary costs. 
JPMA argued that the current compliance schedule would result in 
duplicative efforts regarding ``instruction and label revisions, 
tooling modifications, model testing and certification processes, 
marketing materials and more, adding unnecessary costs and 
challenges.'' JPMA explained that every modification triggers a change 
to the Universal Product Code. JPMA stated that such a change results 
in product histories and customer reviews starting over for new 
products, which reduces consumer confidence in established products and 
brands. JPMA stated that these changes also disrupt retailer 
relationships with changing product models that sometimes result in 
buybacks of older versions of the products.
    JPMA suggested that the compliance date for the changes to the 
three standards be aligned with the FMVSS No. 213b compliance date 
(December 5, 2026) to avoid any unnecessary burdens and to minimize 
costs for manufacturers. As an alternative, JPMA suggested aligning the 
labeling changes of FMVSS No. 213 and the side impact requirements in 
FMVSS No. 213a to a December 5, 2025, compliance date. JPMA explained 
that this date is favorable for the manufacturers to avoid challenges 
of midyear product changes and would allow them five additional months 
to work on the new FMVSS No. 213a side impact requirements.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is partially granting JPMA's petition to 
align the FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b compliance dates. In the side 
impact final rule, we discussed that the agency did not see a reason to 
delay the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a, or to shorten the lead 
time for FMVSS No. 213b. The agency explained that making the 
compliance dates of the two rules coincide had some merit but the 
consequences of aligning the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a with 
that of FMVSS No. 213b would delay the significant safety benefits \13\ 
of side impact protection and thereby outweigh any such merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The FMVSS No. 213a side impact final rule calculated an 
annual reduction of 3.7 fatalities and 41 serious non-fatal 
injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the option for early compliance, manufacturers have 
flexibility in deciding when to meet these updated standards. FMVSS No. 
213b test results showed that some current CRS designs already meet 
performance requirements using the new sled text fixture. CRS 
manufacturers will have an opportunity for early compliance for their 
CRS models that need no change or only need small design changes, and 
if desired, to voluntarily comply with the FMVSS No. 213b requirements 
by the June 30, 2025, compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a to reduce their 
burden.
    To alleviate some of JPMA's concerns on duplicative efforts due to 
the different compliance dates, we are aligning the updates to FMVSS 
No. 213 from the frontal test upgrade final rule and the side impact 
final rule to a single compliance date of June 30, 2025. This action 
partially grants JPMA's petition. The compliance date alignment will 
reduce unnecessary burdens through minimization of costs to 
manufacturers caused by multiple model number changes for a particular 
CRS design in a short period of time. This change provides an 
additional 6-7 months for manufacturers to align their labeling and 
registration card designs and launch them together along with the side 
impact changes.
    One of JPMA's requests was to align the FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 
213a compliance dates to the December 5, 2025, compliance date for 
FMVSS No. 213b. As noted earlier, delaying the compliance date of FMVSS 
No. 213a would delay the significant safety benefits from improved side 
impact protection afforded to children seated in applicable CRSs. 
Additionally, delaying the FMVSS No. 213 labeling and registration card 
changes that were finalized in the December 5, 2023 frontal test 
upgrade final rule notice by an additional year (December 5, 2025) 
would delay the safety benefits garnered from these updates.\14\ NHTSA 
is granting a little over 6 months delay in requiring compliance with 
the labeling and registration updates to reduce manufacturer's burden 
of introducing products to the market multiple times. NHTSA believes 
this approach reduces burden to manufacturers without significantly 
impacting the realization of benefits from the updated labeling 
requirements and does not see need to further delay the benefits. 
Therefore, NHTSA is denying the petition to align the FMVSS Nos. 213 
and 213a compliance date to December 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NHTSA estimated potentially 0.7 to 2.3 lives will be saved 
and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical severity injuries prevented 
annually when all CRSs in the fleet have the updated labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or Changing Sunset Date

    JPMA expressed concerns with retaining Type 1 belt testing until 
2029 without the opportunity for regulatory comment. JPMA claimed that 
the testing is duplicative considering that CRSs would already be 
tested with lower anchors and Type 2 belts. JPMA added that NHTSA 
should consider the time for product validation required by the other 
changes to FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b that will require new full 
evaluations and would delay development of future CRS models.
    JPMA argued that the data presented in the side impact final rule 
where NHTSA estimated ``36% of the 2022 light duty vehicle fleet are of 
model years (MY) 2000-2007 that do not have Type 2 belts in all rear 
seating positions'' is faulty. JPMA noted that in a 2004 final rule (69 
FR 70904) amending FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' the 
agency stated that approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and 49% 
of the light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear 
center seat. JPMA argued that the data presented showed the sunset date 
of September 1, 2029, to remove Type 1 seat belt testing, exceeds the 
objective stated in the final rule of 90 percent of vehicle having Type 
2 belts in the rear center seat.
    JPMA urged NHTSA to remove the unnecessarily duplicative testing 
with Type 1 belts to move towards NHTSA's stated goal of encouraging 
future CRS designs that take advantage of the shoulder belt portion of 
the seat belt to reduce excursions or to recalculate the sunset date 
based on more complete vehicle data.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is granting JPMA's petition to remove Type 1 
seat belt CRS (other than harnesses) \15\ installation testing in FMVSS 
No. 213b. Additionally, NHTSA has decided to amend a labeling 
requirement relating to Type 1 seat belts in FMVSS No. 213 as part of 
the agency's response to this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Per the December 5, 2023 final rule, harnesses will 
continue to be tested only with a Type 1 belt. Type 1 belt 
installation testing for harnesses was not meant to sunset in the 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Removing Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing from FMVSS 
No. 213b. While JPMA pointed to a 2004 final rule (69 FR 70904) where 
NHTSA indicated that ``approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and 
49% of the light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear 
center seat,'' JPMA is

[[Page 81841]]

incorrect in its understanding of that data. We note that this 
percentage did not reflect the vehicle fleet at the time but instead 
referred to the percentage of vehicles that provided Type 2 seat belts 
in model year (MY) 2000 vehicles.\16\ However, NHTSA recognizes that 
the estimates from the December 2023 final rule do not take into 
account vehicles older than MY 2008 that voluntarily provided Type 2 
seat belts; therefore, the agency acknowledges that the estimates of 
Type 1 availability in the fleet (36 percent) should be reevaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This is analysis explained in the Final Economic Assessment 
of the 2004 final rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2004-18726-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To more accurately calculate the percentage of vehicles in the 
fleet without Type 2 seat belts, NHTSA calculated this percentage with 
estimates that include the percentages of vehicles that voluntarily 
provided Type 2 seat belts in vehicles older than MY 2008 to decide 
whether the sunset of Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing should 
be changed. Model year 2008 vehicles or newer are required to have Type 
2 belts in rear center seats, so there would be no Type 1 seat belts in 
the rear center seating position for those vehicles.
    NHTSA used a 2015 study \17\ for estimated percentages of vehicles 
older than MY 2008 with rear center Type 1 seat belts. The study 
determined 59.9 percent of cars and 71.7 percent of light trucks and 
vans (LTVs) for MY 2007 and earlier had rear center Type 1 seat belts. 
NHTSA multiplied those shares by the 2022 total vehicle registrations 
\18\ to estimate the percentage of vehicles that have Type 1 belts in 
rear center seating positions. NHTSA estimated that 15 percent of the 
light duty fleet in 2022 had rear center Type 1 seat belts. NHTSA then 
applied vehicle survivability schedules to estimate future fleet 
estimates of vehicles with rear center Type 1 seat belts. Estimates 
show that in 2026, only 9 percent of vehicles in the fleet are expected 
to have rear center lap belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Kahane, C.J., National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Lives saved by vehicle safety technologies and 
associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012--
Passenger cars and LTVs--With reviews of 26 FMVSS and the 
effectiveness of their associated safety technologies in reducing 
fatalities, injuries, and crashes'' (report No. DOT HS 812 069) 
(Jan. 2015). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069.
    \18\ Vehicle registration data for passenger vehicles (cars and 
light trucks) were obtained from R.L. Polk's National Vehicle 
Population Profile (NVPP). The Polk data set is a compilation of all 
passenger vehicles that have been registered in compliance with 
State requirements. (R.L. Polk is a foundation of IHS Markit 
automotive solutions.)

 Table 1--Rear Center Type 1 Seat Belt Availability in the Vehicle Fleet
                                 by Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Rear center lap
                         Year                            belt share (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022..................................................              15.0
2023..................................................              13.4
2024..................................................              11.8
2025..................................................              10.3
2026..................................................               9.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the side impact final rule, NHTSA noted that CRS testing with 
Type 1 seat belt attachment would end when 90 percent of the fleet 
consists of vehicles with Type 2 seat belts at all rear seating 
positions.\19\ The new estimates show that by the time FMVSS No. 213b 
becomes mandatory on December 5, 2026, the vehicle fleet would already 
have 91 percent of vehicles with Type 2 seat belts in all rear seating 
positions. Therefore, the agency is removing the requirements from 
FMVSS No. 213b to test CRSs (other than harnesses) with Type 1 seat 
belt installations. If a manufacturer chooses to comply early with 
FMVSS No. 213b for a CRS model, that CRS model would not have to be 
tested with Type 1 seat belt installation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NHTSA stated in the December 2023 final rule that Type 1 
seat belt installation tests become less necessary for safety with 
the continued reduction of the share of older vehicles (older than 
2008 MY) having Type 1 belts. The Type 1 seat belt installation 
tests may be preventing CRS manufacturers from designing lap-
shoulder belt paths that may function as a tether. This pseudo-
tether would reduce a child's head excursions, reducing injury 
severities and lowering the fatality risk for a larger portion of 
the market. Therefore, ending Type 1 seat belt installation tests 
when 90% of the fleet have Type 2 seat belts at all rear seating 
positions serves a good balance to further improve child safety.
    \20\ NHTSA expects that if a CRS manufacturer chooses early 
compliance with FMVSS No. 213b, it would align to the FMVSS No. 213a 
compliance date (June 2025). For those models, Type 1 seat belt 
installation would no longer be evaluated. Given the new calculated 
estimates, the fleet with vehicles having Type 1 seat belts will 
have reached 10.3%, which is only slightly above the 10% target in 
the December 2023 final rule. Not all CRS manufacturers will choose 
to comply early so NHTSA believes this 10.3% is acceptable as this 
number will continue to decline as 2026 approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Restoring Type 1 seat belt labeling requirements in FMVSS No. 
213. In addition to granting JPMA's petition above, NHTSA has also 
decided to amend FMVSS No. 213's labeling requirements relating to Type 
1 seat belts. Specifically, NHTSA is restoring paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) 
to its prior version, before the frontal test upgrade final rule was 
issued.
    Before the frontal test upgrade final rule, paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) 
required that CRSs have an installation diagram attached to the CRS 
showing the CRS installed with a Type 1 seat belt. During the process 
of amending the regulatory text for FMVSS No. 213 as part of the 
frontal test upgrade final rule, the agency deleted this requirement, 
making it so paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) simply read ``[Reserved].'' Because 
the agency has decided to amend the lap belt requirements in FMVSS No. 
213b as part of this petition for reconsideration response, but has not 
applied that same amendment to FMVSS No. 213, CRSs certified to FMVSS 
No. 213 up until 2026 will still have to be certified with Type 1 
belts. Accordingly, the agency feels it is necessary for CRSs certified 
to FMVSS No. 213 to have a label attached showing a diagram of the CRS 
installed with a Type 1 belt. For the reasons discussed above, the 
agency will be restoring this requirement in paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2) of 
FMVSS No. 213 as part of this final rule.

c. Unit Conversion Consistency

    JPMA and Evenflo requested that FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b have a 
consistent metric conversion number for standards that specify 40-
pounds, as currently the standards specify 18 kg, 18.2 kg, and 18.4 kg 
in various places. JPMA and Evenflo encouraged a rounded 18 kg 
conversion even though it is not an exact conversion. Evenflo noted 
that the FMVSS No. 213 regulation has long used 18 kg as the equivalent 
to 40 pounds in labeling requirements. As an alternative, the 
petitioners suggested using a more exact conversion (rounding to a 
single decimal place) of 18.1 kg.
    Agency Response: NHTSA has reviewed the regulatory text sections 
with inconsistent conversions from 40 pounds to kilograms. NHTSA agrees 
that having a single conversion throughout the three standards is 
preferable. Therefore, NHTSA is granting this petition and is amending 
the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 213b to have an 18 
kg value for the 40-pound conversion throughout the standards. As 
Evenflo pointed out, NHTSA has used this conversion in the current 
FMVSS No. 213 regulatory text. Accordingly, the agency agrees that 
amendments to FMVSS No. 213 and 213b should use the same conversion.

d. Remove Duplicative Language

    Evenflo requested removing duplicative language. Evenflo noted that

[[Page 81842]]

S5 of FMVSS No. 213b has duplicative language in different 
subparagraphs (S5(b)(2) \21\ and S5(g)) \22\ which creates ambiguity 
with respect to what is intended and particularly as to whether there 
is any substantive difference in the two provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ S5(b)(2) states ``each add-on child restraint system 
manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is recommended for 
children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms 
(40 pounds) regardless of height, or for children in a height range 
that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters (mm) regardless of 
weight, shall meet the requirements in this standard and the 
applicable side impact protection requirements in Standard No. 213a 
(Sec.  571.213a).''
    \22\ S5(g) states ``Each add-on child restraint system 
manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is recommended for 
children in a weight range that includes weights less than 18 
kilograms (40 pounds) regardless of height, or for children in a 
height range that includes heights less than 1100 millimeters 
regardless of weight, shall meet the requirements in this standard 
and the applicable side impact protection requirements in Standard 
No. 213a (Sec.  571.213a).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evenflo also explained that given the discussion in Section XI(h) 
of the Preamble to the December 2023 Final Rule (88 FR 84514), Evenflo 
understands that the meaning of ``up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' is 
substantively synonymous with ``less than 18 Kilograms (40 pounds).
    Agency Response: NHTSA is granting Evenflo's petition to remove 
duplicative language in S5(b)(2) and S5(g) by removing S5(g). NHTSA is 
also amending S5(b)(2) to provide clearer language. The statement in 
S5(b)(2) will be changed from wording describing the CRS recommend 
weight and height as ``up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' and ``up to 
1100 millimeters (mm)'' to ``less than 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' and 
``less than 1100 millimeters (mm),'' respectively.

e. Registration Card Guidelines

    JPMA requested guidance on the new registration information for 
consumers. JPMA suggested guidance could be in a revised Laboratory 
Test Procedure or a separate, dedicated document. JPMA argued that this 
guidance should be provided soon due to the short time period prior to 
the compliance date for the registration requirements.
    Agency Response: NHTSA is denying the petition to provide 
additional guidance on the registration card. The petitioners requested 
guidance on the new registration information for consumers. This 
request is for not a rulemaking action, and, therefore, is out of 
scope.
    NHTSA notes that the regulatory text describes the information that 
must be provided in the registration card. NHTSA did not receive any 
comments from CRS manufacturers seeking more guidance on this content. 
The goal of the changes to the registration form was to provide 
flexibility to manufacturers in how they communicate with consumers to 
increase registration rates. NHTSA notes that the registration forms 
that comply with current requirements would also comply with the new 
requirements.

IV. Corrections to Regulatory Text

    In the frontal test upgrade final rule (88 FR 84515) published on 
December 5, 2023, NHTSA inadvertently omitted important conditional 
language in the FMVSS No. 213b regulatory text. The omitted language 
creates an inconsistency within the standard, and several stakeholders 
have contacted NHTSA's compliance office about this issue. The agency 
is correcting the regulatory text as part of this final rule to 
alleviate potential confusion.
    In the frontal test upgrade final rule, the agency inadvertently 
omitted conditional language from FMVSS No. 213b S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii).\23\ 
This paragraph and subsection were carried over from FMVSS No. 213. 
FMVSS No. 213 S5.5.2 specifies a labeling requirement for CRSs. 
Specifically, paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) requires specific statements 
be present on the CRS explaining when and when not to secure the CRS 
with the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system. This section has 
several conditional requirements, including a requirement that a 
statement be present that the child restraint anchorage system should 
not be used in certain scenarios for CRSs manufactured from February 
27, 2014, to February 26, 2015. The conditional language for this 
requirement--that the statement be present on CRSs manufactured in the 
time frame referenced above--appears in brackets in that paragraph of 
FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The bolded language represents the language that was 
omitted from FMVSS No. 213b: ``[For child restraints manufactured 
from February 27, 2014 to February 26, 2015, the following statement 
applies.] Child restraint systems equipped with internal harnesses 
to restrain the child and with components to attach to a child 
restraint anchorage system and for which the combined weight of the 
child restraint system and the maximum recommended child weight for 
use with internal harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, must be labeled with 
the following statement: `Do not use the lower anchors of the child 
restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child 
restraint when restraining a child weighing more than * [*insert a 
recommended weight value in English and metric units such that the 
sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the child 
restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the 
internal harnesses of the child restraint.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing FMVSS No. 213b as part of the frontal test upgrade, 
much of the language from FMVSS No. 213 was carried over to FMVSS No. 
213b. The agency's intent was to carry over paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) 
as drafted in FMVSS 213 to FMVSS No. 213b. That did not happen, as the 
parenthetical indicating that the final labeling requirement in 
S5.5.2(1)(ii) only applied to seats manufactured between February 27, 
2014, and February 26, 2015, was not carried over. The result of that 
omission is that CRSs certified to FMVSS No. 213b now must include the 
statement instructing consumers when not to use the child restraint 
anchorage system, regardless of when the CRS was manufactured. This 
requirement creates inconsistency within the standard, as Tables 
S5.5.2(L)(3)(I)(B) and (C) provide different labeling requirements for 
the maximum weight limit for child restraint anchorage system use. For 
newly manufactured CRSs, these tables are what manufacturers should 
rely on in determining labeling requirements for weight thresholds for 
child restraint anchorage systems. However, because the conditional 
language was omitted from paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), there are now two 
conflicting labeling requirements for newly produced CRSs.
    This outcome is not what the agency intended, and the current 
language creates contradictory requirements within the standard. The 
agency believes that alleviating confusion with the standard will make 
it easier for manufacturers to comply with the standard. Additionally, 
this amendment will improve safety outcomes, as the current language 
would likely require that manufacturers have contradictory language 
printed on labels attached to CRSs. This conflicting language will only 
lead to confusion on the part of the consumer and may increase misuse 
rates. For the reasons listed above, NHTSA is amending FMVSS No. 
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) by removing the last requirement listed in FMVSS No. 
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii). We believe this is the proper way to address the 
issue discussed above, as no CRSs certified to FMVSS No. 213b will have 
been manufactured between 2014 and 2015. Accordingly, there is no 
reason to have a labeling requirement in FMVSS No. 213b that applies 
only to seats produced during that time frame.

V. Costs and Benefits

    The agency expects no safety benefits as a result of this final 
rule. However, it is worth noting that the agency believes addressing 
the inconsistency in current labeling requirements in FMVSS No. 213b 
will only result in positive safety outcomes. There will be a cost 
reduction from removing requirements to test CRS secured with Type 1 
seat belts. The December 2023 final rule

[[Page 81843]]

estimated a temporary annual testing cost with Type 1 seat belts for 3 
years of $5,198,000. This final rule will eliminate the estimated Type 
1 seat belt installation test cost in FMVSS No. 213b.

VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date

    Because the amendments of this final rule responding to petitions 
for reconsideration are minor corrections, these amendments will be 
effective on November 8, 2024. The amendments will follow the 
compliance dates for the corresponding sections.

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 14904, E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the potential impact of this final rule under 
E.O. 12866, E.O. 14094, E.O. 13563, DOT Order 2100.6A and the 
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This 
NPRM is not considered to be significant under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration to the 
June 2022 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213a and the December 2023 
final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213b. This final rule makes several 
changes to FMVSS No. 213, FMVSS No. 213a and FMVSS No. 213b; 
specifically, the minor changes provide increased clarity on what the 
standard requires and bring increased uniformity across the three 
standards. An additional amendment eliminates the Type 1 belt testing 
requirement for FMVSS No. 213 through 2029; instead the agency will 
only be testing with a Type 2 belt starting in 2026. Accordingly, the 
agency updated the costs in preparation of this final rule. The agency 
estimates a savings of $5,198,000 compared to the final rule because 
manufacturers will not have to conduct tests with Type 1 belts from 
2026 through 2029. More information can be found in the ``Discussion of 
Benefits and Costs Associated with the Final Rule'' section above.
    The minimal impacts of this final rule did not warrant preparation 
of a regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions), 
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this 
certification.
    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there 
to be 38 manufacturers of child restraints, none of which are small 
businesses. Even if there were a small CRS manufacturer, the impacts of 
this rule will not be significant. The amendments made in this final 
rule are small, and if anything, the impact of the final rule will 
result in a net savings for a small business CRS manufacturer, due to 
the fact that it would not have to conduct testing with a Type 1 belt 
from 2026 through 2029 to ensure compliance with FMVSS No. 213.

Federalism

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation 
with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated 
beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the 
rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. This final rule would not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 
preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard 
for an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance, 
a State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that 
same aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the 
Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 
by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and 
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved.
    NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS 
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort 
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum 
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose 
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be 
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for 
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum 
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly 
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this final 
rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The 
agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive 
effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will 
be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency 
has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the 
regulatory text) and objectives of this final rule and finds that this 
final rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety 
standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this final rule 
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard 
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this final 
rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law 
would not conflict with the minimum standard finalized in this 
document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied 
preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the NEPA. The 
agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the procedures established by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.), a Federal agency must request and receive approval from 
the Office of

[[Page 81844]]

Management and Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from 
the public and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
OMB control number.
    The final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 (88 FR 84514) included 
updates to NHTSA's CRS registration requirements, which constituted an 
information collection. Included in that final rule was a notice 
soliciting comment on the information collection associated with the 
updated CRS registration requirements (OMB Control Number: 2127-0576). 
No comments were received. NHTSA will submit the Information Collection 
Request to OMB for its review and approval of the revised collection of 
information.
    This final rule amends the CRS registration requirements adopted in 
the frontal test upgrade final rule by pushing the compliance date back 
to June of 2025. The change in the compliance date does not impact the 
information collection burden outlined in the frontal test upgrade 
final rule and none of the other amendments in this final rule create 
``collections of information'' as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The UMBRA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted 
annually for inflation, with base year of 1995). UMRA also requires an 
agency issuing an NPRM or final rule subject to the Act to select the 
``least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule.'' This final rule would not 
result in a Federal mandate that will likely result in the expenditure 
by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually 
for inflation, with base year of 1995).

E.O. 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under E.O. 
12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as 
appropriate: (1) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) 
specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, 
displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative 
proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; 
(6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other 
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of 
regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that 
there is no requirement that an individual submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they 
may file suit in court.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Under the NTTAA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies 
and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical 
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities 
determined by the agencies and departments.'' Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 
methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed 
or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the 
International Organization for Standardization and the Society of 
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs this agency to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There are no voluntary 
consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies 
pertaining to this final rule.

Plain Language Requirement

    E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain 
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes 
consideration of the following questions:
    <bullet> Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    <bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    <bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
    <bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    <bullet> Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    <bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
    <bullet> What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain 
language in promulgating this final rule. Please inform the agency if 
you can suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The DOT assigns a RIN to each regulatory action listed in the 
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information 
Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of 
each year. The RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this 
notice may be used to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone can search the electronic form 
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by Reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 
vehicles, and Tires.

Regulatory Text

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.


0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by
0
a. In paragraph S4, revising the definition of ``School bus child 
restraint system'';

[[Page 81845]]

0
b. In paragraph S5.1.1 revising the introductory text and paragraph 
(a);
0
c. Revising the headings of table 1 and table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a);
0
d. Revising paragraphs S5.2.4, S5.3.2.1, S5.5.2(f) introductory text, 
S5.5.2(f)(2), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i) and (ii),
0
e. Adding paragraph S5.5.2(l)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraphs S5.6.1.7(a) introductory text, S5.6.1.7(b), 
S5.6.1.11, S5.6.2.2(a) introductory text, S5.6.2.2(b), S5.8.1(a), 
S5.8.1.1 introductory text, S5.8.2(a) introductory text, and S5.8.2.1 
introductory text.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  571.213  Child restraint systems; Applicable unless a vehicle or 
child restraint system is certified to Sec.  571.213b.

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions
* * * * *
    School bus child restraint system means an add-on child restraint 
system (including a harness) manufactured and sold only for use on 
school bus seats, that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b). (This 
definition applies to child restraint systems manufactured on or after 
June 30, 2025.)
* * * * *
    S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance 
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural 
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a 
radius of less than 6 mm or surfaces with protrusions greater than 9 mm 
above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any 
structural element of the system.
* * * * *
Table 1 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints that Can Be Used 
Forward-Facing Manufactured Before June 30, 2025
* * * * *
Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used 
Forward-Facing Manufactured After June 30, 2025
* * * * *
    S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural 
component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of 
a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of 
S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material 
removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system 
surface of not more than 9 mm and no exposed edge with a radius of less 
than 6 mm.
* * * * *
    S5.3.2.1 School bus child restraint systems manufactured on or 
after June 30, 2025, shall be capable of meeting the requirements of 
this standard when installed by seat back mount, or, seat back mount 
and seat pan mount.
* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (f) For child restraint systems manufactured before June 30, 2025, 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section applies. For child restraint systems 
manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section applies.
* * * * *
    (2) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 30, 
2025: Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms 
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the mass and height 
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy 
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward facing, 
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend forward-facing use 
for child restraint systems with internal harnesses for children of 
masses less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend booster seats 
for children of masses less than 18 kg (40 lb).
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) As appropriate, the statements required by the following 
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by 
5.5.2(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), 5.5.2(j), 
and 5.5.2(i). For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 
30, 2025, the statements required by 5.5.2(f) and 5.5.2(k)(2) need not 
be included.
    (ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint 
anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds, 
harnesses, and belt positioning seats, the first part of the statement 
regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is 
optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the 
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.]
* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) A seating position equipped with only a lap belt, as specified 
in the manufacturer's instructions; and
* * * * *
    S5.6.1.7. (a) For child restraint systems manufactured before June 
30, 2025, one of the following statements, inserting an address and a 
U.S. telephone number. If a manufacturer opts to provide a website on 
the registration card as permitted in Figure 9a of this section, the 
manufacturer must include the statement in paragraph S5.6.1.7(a)(2):
* * * * *
    (b) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 30, 
2025, the child restraint system shall include statements informing the 
owner of the importance of registering the child restraint for recall 
purposes and instructing the owner how to register the child restraint 
at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S. telephone number. 
The following statement must also be provided: ``For recall 
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
    S5.6.1.11 (a) For harnesses that are manufactured before June 30, 
2025, for use on school bus seats, the instructions must include the 
following statement: ``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on 
school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or 
have restrained occupants.'' The labeling requirement refers to a 
restrained occupant as: an occupant restrained by any user appropriate 
vehicle restraint or child restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and 
shoulder belt, booster, child seat, harness . . .).
    (b) For school bus child restraint systems manufactured on or after 
June 30, 2025, the instructions must include the following statement: 
``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats. Entire 
seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained occupants.'' 
(The instruction's reference to a ``restrained occupant'' refers to an 
occupant restrained by any user-appropriate vehicle restraint or child 
restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder belt, booster seat 
or other child restraint system.)
* * * * *
    S5.6.2.2. (a) For child restraint systems manufactured before June 
30, 2025, the instructions for each built in child restraint system 
other than a factory-installed restraint, shall include one of the 
following statements, inserting an address and a U.S. telephone number. 
If a manufacturer opts to provide a website on the registration card as 
permitted in Figure 9a of this section, the manufacturer must include 
the statement in S5.6.2.2(a)(2):
* * * * *

[[Page 81846]]

    (b) For child restraint systems manufactured on or after June 30, 
2025, the instructions for each built-in child restraint system other 
than a factory-installed restraint shall include statements informing 
the owner of the importance of registering the child restraint for 
recall purposes and instructing the owner how to register the child 
restraint at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S. telephone 
number. The following statement must also be provided: ``For recall 
information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-
888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
    S5.8.1 Attached registration form. (a) For child restraint systems 
manufactured before June 30, 2025, each child restraint system, except 
a factory-installed built-in restraint system, shall have a 
registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that 
contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system in 
accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213.
* * * * *
    S5.8.1.1 Upgraded attached registration form. For child restraint 
systems manufactured on or after June 30, 2025, each child restraint 
system, except a factory-installed built-in restraint system, shall 
have a registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that 
contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system in 
accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. The form shall not have 
advertising or any information other than that related to registering 
the child restraint system.
* * * * *
    S5.8.2 * * *
    (a) Each electronic registration form provided for child restraint 
systems manufactured before June 30, 2025, shall:
* * * * *
    S5.8.2.1 Upgraded electronic registration form (a) Each electronic 
registration form provided for child restraint systems manufactured on 
or after June 30, 2025, shall:
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.213a is amended by revising paragraphs S6.1.1(a)(1), 
S9.2(d), and S9.3(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.213a  Standard No. 213a; Child restraint systems--side impact 
protection.

* * * * *
    S6.1.1 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) The test device is a SISA consisting of a sliding seat, with 
one seating position, and a simulated door assembly as described in 
``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213a--Side impact No. NHTSA-
213a-2021'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5). The simulated 
door assembly is rigidly attached to the floor of the SISA and the 
sliding seat is mounted on rails to allow it to move relative to the 
floor of the SISA in the direction perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA 
is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL of the seat is 
10 <plus-minus>1 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test 
platform travel.
* * * * *
    S9.2 * * *
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 
rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards in the plane parallel to the 
dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the 
child restraint or the SISA. Rotate each of the dummy's arms downwards 
in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm is 
engaged on the detent that positions the arm at a 25-degree angle with 
respect to the thorax. For child restraint systems with a fixed or 
movable surface that does not allow the dummy's arm to be positioned at 
a 25-degree angle, rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane 
parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a 
surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly.
    S9.3 * * *
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 
rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's 
midsagittal plane until the limb is positioned at a 25-degree angle 
with respect to the thorax. For child restraint systems with a fixed or 
movable surface that does not allow the dummy's arm to be positioned at 
a 25-degree angle, rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane 
parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a 
surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 571.213b is amended by
0
a. Revising paragraph S5(b)(2);
0
b. Removing paragraph S5(g);
0
c. Revising paragraphs S5.1.1 introductory text, S5.1.1.(a), table 2 in 
paragraph S5.1.3.1(a), S5.2.4, table 4 in paragraph S5.3.2, S5.5.2(f), 
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), S5.5.5(f), and S7.1.2(d) and (e).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  571.213b  Standard No. 213b; Child restraint systems; Mandatory 
applicability beginning December 5, 2026.

* * * * *
    S5 * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in 
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that 
includes weights less than 18 kilograms (40 pounds) regardless of 
height, or for children in a height range that includes heights less 
than 1100 millimeters (mm) regardless of weight, shall meet the 
requirements in this standard and the applicable side impact protection 
requirements in Standard No. 213a (Sec.  571.213a).
* * * * *
    S5.1 * * *
    S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance 
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural 
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a 
radius of less than 6 mm or surfaces with protrusions greater than 9 mm 
above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any 
structural element of the system.
* * * * *
    S5.1.3.1 * * *
    (a) * * *

                 Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used Forward-Facing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Explanatory note: in the
                                                                                        test specified in 2nd
                                                                                        column, the excursion
                                                                                       requirement must be met
 When this type of child restraint        Is tested in       These excursion limits    when the child restraint
               system                   accordance with--             apply           system is attached to the
                                                                                      test seat assembly in the
                                                                                       manner described below,
                                                                                          subject to certain
                                                                                              conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All harnesses......................  S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A)....  Head 813 mm; Knee 915   Attached with lap belt; in
                                                              mm.                     addition, if a tether is
                                                                                      provided, it is attached.

[[Page 81847]]

 
Restraints designed for use by       S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A)....  Head 813 mm; Knee 915   Attached with lap and
 children with physical                                       mm.                     shoulder belt; in
 disabilities.                                                                        addition, if a tether is
                                                                                      provided, it is attached.
School bus child restraint systems.  S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A)....  Head 813 mm; Knee 915   Attached with seat back
                                                              mm.                     mount, or seat back and
                                                                                      seat pan mounts.
Booster seats......................  S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii)......  Head 813 mm; Knee 915   Attached with lap and
                                                              mm.                     shoulder belt; no tether
                                                                                      is attached.
Child restraint systems other than   S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B)....  Head 813 mm; Knee 915   Attached with a lap and
 harnesses, restraints designed for                           mm.                     shoulder belt; without a
 use by children with physical                                                        tether attached.
 disabilities, school bus child                                                      Attached to lower
 restraint systems, and booster                                                       anchorages of child
 seats.                                                                               restraint anchorage
                                                                                      system; without a tether
                                                                                      attached.
Child restraint systems other than   S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A),     Head 720 mm; Knee 915   Attached with a lap and
 harnesses, restraints designed for   S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C).     mm.                     shoulder belt, with a
 use by children with physical                                                        tether attached.
 disabilities, school bus child                                                      Attached to lower
 restraint systems.                                                                   anchorages of child
                                                                                      restraint anchorage
                                                                                      system, with a tether
                                                                                      attached.
Child restraint systems equipped     S6.1.2(a)(2)..........  Head 813 mm; Knee 915   Attached with lap and
 with a fixed or movable surface                              mm.                     shoulder belt or lower
 described in S5.2.2.2 that has                                                       anchorages of child
 belts that are not an integral                                                       restraint anchorage
 part of that fixed or movable                                                        system; no tether is
 surface.                                                                             attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural 
component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of 
a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of 
S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material 
removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system 
surface of not more than 9 mm and no exposed edge with a radius of less 
than 6 mm.
* * * * *
    S5.3.2 * * *

                                          Table 4 for S5.3.2 Means of Installation for Child Restraint Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Lower
                                                                                                        anchorages of        Lower
                                                      Type 1 seat      Type 2 seat                        the child      anchorages of      Seat back
                                                     belt assembly    belt assembly     Type 2 seat       restraint        the child     mount, or, seat
       Type of add-on child restraint system         plus a tether    plus a tether    belt assembly      anchorage        restraint       back mount,
                                                     anchorage, if    anchorage, if                     system plus a      anchorage      and, seat pan
                                                         needed           needed                          tether, if         system           mount
                                                                                                            needed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus child restraint systems................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Harnesses.........................................               X   ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Car beds..........................................  ...............  ...............               X   ...............  ...............  ...............
Rear-facing restraints............................  ...............  ...............               X   ...............               X   ...............
Booster seats.....................................  ...............  ...............               X   ...............  ...............  ...............
All other child restraint systems.................  ...............               X                X                X                X   ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms 
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the weight and height 
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy 
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward facing, 
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend that child restraint 
systems with internal harnesses be used forward-facing with children of 
weights less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend that booster 
seats be used by children of weights less than 18 kg (40 lb).
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint 
anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds, 
harnesses, and belt positioning seats, the first part of the statement 
regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is 
optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the 
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.]
* * * * *
    S5.5.5 * * *
    (f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms 
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the weight and height 
ranges (in English and metric units) of children who can safely occupy 
the system in each applicable mode (rear-facing, forward facing, 
booster), except manufacturers shall not recommend forward-facing child 
restraint systems with internal harnesses for children of weights less

[[Page 81848]]

than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall not recommend booster seats for 
children of weights less than 18 kg (40 lb).
* * * * *
    S7.1.2 * * *
    (d) A child restraint system that is recommended by its 
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a 
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight 
greater than 13.6 kg (30 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb) 
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that 
includes any children whose height is greater than 870 mm but not 
greater than 1100 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part 
572, subpart P dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy).
    (e) A child restraint system that is recommended by its 
manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a 
specified weight range that includes any children having a weight 
greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) 
regardless of height, or by children in a specified height range that 
includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm but not 
greater than 1250 mm regardless of weight, is tested with a 49 CFR part 
572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6- year-old dummy).
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Sophie Shulman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-22448 Filed 10-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P