39234 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0051] 

RIN 2127–AK95 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Systems, 

Child Restraint Systems—Side Impact 

Protection, Incorporation by Reference 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) (Standard) No. 213, ‘‘Child 

restraint systems,’’ and adds FMVSS No. 

213a, which is referenced by Standard 

No. 213. This final rule fulfills a 

statutory mandate set forth in the 

‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act’’ (MAP–21) that directed 

the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA 

by delegation) to issue a final rule to 

improve the protection of children 

seated in child restraint systems during 

side impacts. 

DATES: 

Effective date: August 1, 2022. The 

incorporation by reference of the 

publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of August 1, 2022. 

Compliance date: June 30, 2025. 

Optional early compliance is permitted. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received no later than August 

15, 2022. 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

facilitate social distancing due to 

COVID–19, please email a copy of the 

petition to nhtsa.webmaster@dot.gov. 

Privacy Act. The petition will be 

placed in the docket. Anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

documents received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– 

78) or you may visit https://

www.transportation.gov/individuals/ 

privacy/privacy-act-system-recordsnotices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may call Cristina 

Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, telephone 202–366–6345, 

email Cristina.Echemendia@dot.gov. For 

legal issues, Deirdre Fujita or Hannah 

Fish, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

telephone 202–366–2992, email 

Dee.Fujita@dot.gov or Hannah.Fish@

dot.gov. The mailing address of these 

officials is the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Safety Need 

III. Statutory Mandate 

IV. Guiding Principles 

V. Overview of the NPRM and Comments 

Received 

a. Overview of the NPRM 

b. Summary of the Comments 

VI. Response to the Comments (WideReaching Issues) 

a. Are efforts better spent elsewhere on 

child restraint systems? 

b. Will child restraints become excessively 

large and heavy? 

c. More Bulk Is Not Necessarily 

Advantageous; the 2017 Test Program 

d. The 40-lb Limit for Coverage of the 

Standard 

e. Improving Side Impact Protection for 

Children Older Than 3-Years-Old 

f. Weight as a Limiting Factor 

g. Labeling CRSs for Children Weighing 

Over 18.1 kg (40 lb) 

1. Label as ‘‘Not Tested in Side Impacts’’ 

2. Head Under Window Sill 

VII. Aspects of the FMVSS 213a Test 

Procedure 

a. Overview 

b. Side Impact Seat Assembly 

Characteristics 

1. Seat Characteristics 

i. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness 

ii. Lower Anchorages and Top Tether 

Anchorages of the CRAS 

2. Door Characteristics 

i Beltline Height 

ii. Door and Armrest Thickness and 

Stiffness 

3. Honeycomb 

4. SISA Technical Drawings 

5. Other Testing Issues 

i. Right-Side Impacts 

ii. Sliding Seat Bearings 

iii. Seat Belt Interference 

c. Sled Kinematic Parameters 

1. General 

2. Specific Issues 

i. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile 

ii. Tuning the Test To Account for Lighter 

Dummies 

iii. Acceleration Corridor 

3. Door Parameters 

4. Relative Door Velocity Profile 

5. Relative Velocity at Impact Time (T0)— 

Tolerance 

6. Longitudinal Crash Component 

d. Test Set Up and Procedure 

1. CRS Attachment 

i. Lower Anchor and/or Seat Belt CRS 

Installation 

ii. Tethered vs. Non-Tethered CRS 

Installation 

iii. Distance Between Edge of Armrest and 

Edge of Seat 

e. Dummy Positioning 

f. Dummy Selection 

g. Miscellaneous Comments on the Test 

Procedure, Including Test Setup, Sled 

Instrumentation, and Data Processing 

h. Additional Changes 

VIII. Performance Requirements 

a. Q3s 

1. Q3s Sourcing 

2. Biofidelity Issues 

3. Aspects of Testing With the Q3s 

i. Reversibility 

ii. HIII 3-Year-Old Child Test Dummy as an 

Alternative 

4. Q3s Performance Measures 

i. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 

ii. Head Contact (Not Assessed) 

iii. Chest Deflection 

b. CRABI 12-Month-Old 

1. Alternative ATDs 

2. Durability 

3. Head-to-Door Contact 

4. Component Test 

5. CRS System Integrity and Energy 

Distribution 

IX. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

X. Lead Time and Effective Date 

XI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

This final rule amends FMVSS No. 

213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to 

establish side impact performance 

requirements for child restraint systems 

(CRS) designed to seat children 

weighing up to 18.1 kilograms (kg) (40 

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

range that includes heights up to 1100 

millimeters (43.3 inches.) The side 

impact performance requirements are 

established in a new FMVSS No. 213a, 

which is referenced by Standard No. 

213. This final rule fulfills a statutory 

mandate set forth in MAP–21 that 

directed the Secretary of Transportation 

(NHTSA by delegation) to issue a final 

rule to improve the protection of 

children seated in child restraint 

systems during side impacts. 

Standard No. 213a requires child 

restraints designed to seat children 

weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb), or for 

children in a height range that includes 

heights up to 1100 millimeters (43.3 

inches) to meet performance criteria 

when tested in a dynamic test 

replicating a vehicle-to-vehicle side 

impact. The child restraints must 

provide proper restraint, manage side 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39235 

1 Kahane, November 1982, NHTSA Report No. 

DOT HS 806 314. 

2 Kahane, C.J. (2015, January). 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). 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Link: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.

gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069. 

3NHTSA conducted an analysis of the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data files of real 

world fatal non-rollover frontal and side crashes of 

passenger cars and light trucks and vans involving 

children for the years 1995 to 2009. From this 

analysis, the agency estimated the effectiveness of 

CRSs in preventing fatalities among 0- to 3-year-old 

children to be 42 percent in side crashes and 53 

percent in frontal crashes. The analysis method is 

similar to that reported in the NCSA Research Note, 

‘‘Revised Estimates of Child Restraint 

Effectiveness,’’ DOT HS 96855 and is also detailed 

in the technical report in the NPRM docket (https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0012- 

0002). 

4Standard No. 213 specifies the use of test 

dummies representing a newborn, a 12-month-old, 

3- and 6-year-old, weighted 6-year-old, and 10-yearold child. The ATDs other than the newborn are 

equipped with instrumentation measuring crash 

forces, but NHTSA restricts some measurements 

from the weighted 6-year-old and 10-year-old 

dummies due to technical limits of the dummies. 

5Head excursion refers to the distance the 

dummy’s head translates forward in FMVSS No. 

213’s simulated frontal crash test. 6These types of child restraint systems are 

defined in FMVSS No. 213. 7As explained in more detail below, NHTSA 

published an NPRM on November 2, 2020 (85 FR 

69388) to amend the standard seat assembly in 

FMVSS No. 213 ‘‘to better simulate a single 

representative motor vehicle rear seat.’’ Among 

other matters, the NPRM proposes replacing the lap 

belt test with a lap and shoulder belt (Type 2 belt) 

test. 

8Commonly called ‘‘LATCH,’’ which refers to 

Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, an 

acronym developed to refer to the child restraint 

anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for 

installation in motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.225, 

‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems’’). A child 

restraint anchorage system consists of two lower 

anchorages, and one upper tether anchorage. Each 

lower anchorage includes a rigid round rod, or 

‘‘bar,’’ onto which a hook, a jaw-like buckle or other 

connector can be snapped. The bars are located at 

the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat 

back. The upper tether anchorage is a ring-like 

object to which the upper tether of a child restraint 

system can be attached. FMVSS No. 213 requires 

CRSs to be equipped with attachments that enable 

the CRS to attach to the vehicle’s child restraint 

anchorage system. 

crash forces, and protect against harmful 

head and chest contact with intruding 

structures. In addition, child restraints 

will be required to meet other 

performance requirements in the sled 

test to ensure, among other things, the 

restraint can withstand crash forces 

from a side impact without collapsing or 

fragmenting in a manner that could 

harm the child. This new standard will 

reduce the number of children killed or 

injured in side crashes. 

I. Executive Summary 

Front and side crashes account for 

most child occupant fatalities. FMVSS 

No. 213 currently specifies performance 

requirements that child restraint 

systems (CRSs) must meet in a sled test 

simulating a frontal impact. This final 

rule expands the standard to adopt a 

side impact test. Child restraints subject 

to this final rule must pass the new side 

impact test in addition to the frontal 

impact test. 

Impacts to the side of a vehicle rank 

almost equal to frontal crashes as a 

source of occupant fatalities and serious 

injuries to children ages 0 to 12 years. 

Side impacts are especially dangerous 

when the impact is on the passenger 

compartment because, unlike a frontal 

or rear-end crash, there are no 

substantial, energy absorbing structures 

between the occupant and the impacting 

vehicle or object. The door collapses 

into the passenger compartment and the 

occupants contact the door relatively 

quickly after the crash at a high relative 

velocity.1

In a typical vehicle-to-vehicle side 

impact similar to the one represented in 

Standard No. 214, ‘‘Side impact 

protection’’ (49 CFR 571.214), the 

striking vehicle first interacts with the 

door structure of the struck vehicle and 

commences to crush the door, causing it 

to intrude laterally into the vehicle 

compartment. The striking vehicle then 

engages the sill of the struck vehicle and 

begins to push the struck vehicle away. 

At this point, the occupant sitting on the 

struck side of the vehicle experiences 

the struck vehicle seat moving away 

from the impacting vehicle while the 

door intrudes towards him or her. The 

intruding door impacts the occupant 

and the occupant is accelerated with the 

door along the impact direction until 

the occupant reaches the velocity of the 

struck and striking vehicle. 

Standard No. 214, protects against 

unreasonable risk of injury or death to 

occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes 

and other side crashes. The standard has 

benefited all occupants,2 but due to 

their size and fragility, infants and 

young children are dependent on child 

restraint systems to supplement those 

protections. Child restraints with 

internal harnesses (commonly called 

‘‘car seats,’’ ‘‘child seats’’ or ‘‘safety 

seats’’) are highly effective safety 

devices. Although child seats are not 

currently subject to side impact testing, 

NHTSA estimates that these types of 

child restraints are already 42 percent 

effective in preventing death in side 

crashes of children 0- to 3-years-old.3

This estimated degree of effectiveness is 

high, and is only 11 percentage points 

lower than Child Restraint System (CRS) 

effectiveness in frontal crashes (53 

percent). Child safety seats are effective 

because they restrain the child within 

the child seat and prevent harmful 

contact with interior vehicle 

components, and have padding and an 

outer shell structure that shields the 

child and absorbs some of the crash 

forces. 

Because MAP–21 directed NHTSA to 

amend FMVSS No. 213 to improve side 

impact protection, NHTSA designed 

this final rule to work within the 

framework of the existing frontal 

standard. Child restraint systems are 

tested in FMVSS No. 213 when attached 

to a standardized seat assembly 

representative of a passenger vehicle 

seat. Child restraints are tested with 

anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) 

(test dummies) representative of the 

children for whom the CRS is 

recommended.4 FMVSS No. 213 

requires child restraints to limit the 

amount of inertial load that can be 

exerted on the head and chest of the 

dummy during the dynamic test. The 

standard requires child restraints to 

meet head excursion 5 limits to reduce 

the possibility of head injury from 

contact with vehicle interior surfaces 

and ejection. Child restraints must also 

maintain system integrity (i.e., not 

fracture or separate in such a way as to 

harm a child), and have no contactable 

surface that can harm a child in a crash. 

There are requirements to ensure belt 

webbing can safely restrain the child, 

and that buckles can be swiftly 

unlatched after a crash by an adult but 

cannot be easily unbuckled by an 

unsupervised child. Child restraints 

other than booster seats and harnesses 6

must pass performance requirements 

when attached to the standard seat 

assembly with only a lap belt,7 and, in 

a separate assessment, with only the 

lower anchorages of a child restraint 

anchorage system (CRAS).8 The CRSs 

must meet more stringent head 

excursion requirements in another test 

where a top tether, if provided, may be 

attached. Belt-positioning (booster) seats 

are tested on the standard seat assembly 

using a Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belt. 

This final rule establishes 

requirements for a side impact test that 

are equivalent to those described above, 

and makes child restraint systems even 

more protective of child occupants than 

they are now. It adopts performance 

thresholds that ensure child restraints 

protect against unreasonable risk of 

head and chest injury in side crashes, 

and a performance test that objectively 

assesses and assures achievement of 

such performance. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39236 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

9The agency added a height provision to make 

the new standard’s applicability clear to booster 

seat manufacturers who choose not to label their 

restraints with a weight recommendation. Although 

all current belt-positioning boosters are labeled 

with both height and weight recommendations, 

FMVSS No. 213 permits manufacturers of beltpositioning booster seats to delete the reference to 

maximum weight (see FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.2(f)). 

In view of that provision, for manufacturers that 

only provide a height limit, the application section 

of FMVSS No. 213a will be clear as to the 

applicability of the standard to their restraints. 

When this final rule preamble refers to a ‘‘40 lb 

weight limit’’ we mean the term to be synonymous 

with a height limit of 1100 mm for belt-positioning 

boosters that only provide a height limit. 

10When we describe a child restraint as 

‘‘recommended for’’ children of a certain height or 

weight range, we mean the child restraint 

manufacturer is manufacturing for sale, selling or 

offering the CRS for sale as suitable for children in 

that height or weight range. 

11The Q3s is NHTSA’s first child test dummy 

designed for side impacts. NHTSA published a final 

rule on November 3, 2020 that adopted the Q3s into 

NHTSA’s regulation for anthropomorphic test 

devices. 85 FR 69898. 12 49 CFR part 572, subpart R. 13 Docket No. NHTSA 2014–0012. 14An overview of NHTSA’s work developing 

FMVSS No. 213a can be found in section IX of the 

January 28, 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 4579–4590. 15See NPRM for this final rule, 79 FR 4570, Table 

6. The NPRM also noted that among CRS-restrained 

children with moderate to higher severity injuries 

in side crashes, over 60 percent were in near-side 

impacts (Table 8). 

16Sherwood, see footnotes 40, 43 and 44 of the 

NPRM. 

17The drawings describe every part on the 

dummy and may be used to inspect dummies 

purchased from a dummy manufacturer. The 

impact tests used by CRS manufacturers and other 

end-users serve as a final check to ensure that the 

assembled dummy will perform as prescribed by 

NHTSA in 49 CFR part 572. 

18FMVSS No. 214 MDB test (49 CFR 571.214, S7). 

The standard adopted by this final 

rule applies to child restraints for 

children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) 

or for children up to 1100 millimeters 

(mm) (43.3 inches, or 3 feet, 7 inches) 

in standing height.9 These children 

would be virtually all 3-year-olds and 

almost all 4-year-olds. The 18.1 kg (40 

lb) threshold is greater than the weight 

of a 97th percentile 3-year-old (17.7 kg 

(39.3 lb)) and is approximately the 

weight of an 85th percentile 4-year-old. 

The 1100 mm (43.3 inches) height 

threshold is more than the height of a 

97th percentile 3-year-old (1024 mm 

(40.3 inches)) and corresponds to the 

height of a 97th percentile 4-year-old. 

While the standard would apply to 

child restraints that are recommended 

for use by children weighing less than 

18.1 kg (40 lb) or with heights under 

1100 mm (43.3 inches), as explained in 

a later section, the countermeasures 

(padding and side structure) designed 

into a safety seat to meet the standard 

may also provide side impact protection 

even as the child surpasses the 18.1 kg 

(40 lb) or 1100 mm (43.3 inches) mark. 

Many child safety seats are 

recommended for children much 

heavier than 18.1 kg (40 lb) or taller 

than 1100 mm (43.3 inches). Children 

kept in such seats will benefit from the 

countermeasures as they grow heavier 

than 18.1 kg (40 lb) or taller than 1100 

mm (43.3 inches). NHTSA quantified 

the benefits of this rule for children up 

to age 4 but believes that children older 

than age 4 would benefit from this final 

rule as well. 

This final rule adopts a dynamic sled 

test simulating a full-scale vehicle-tovehicle side impact, which is the firstof-its-kind simulating both an intruding 

door and a longitudinal crash 

component. Child restraints 

recommended 10 for children weighing 

13.6 to 18.1 kg (30 to 40 lb) are tested 

with an instrumented side impact test 

dummy representing a 3-year-old child, 

called the Q3s dummy.11 Child 

restraints designed for children 

weighing up to 13.6 kg (30 lb) are tested 

with an established 12-month-old child 

test dummy (the 12-month-old Child 

Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) 

dummy).12 The new standard requires 

CRSs to restrain the dummy in the side 

test, manage side crash forces and 

prevent harmful head contact with side 

structures. Child restraints tested with 

the Q3s must also limit crash forces to 

the dummy’s chest. Following the 

dynamic side impact test, child 

restraints will be assessed for their 

compliance with requirements for 

system integrity, contactable surfaces, 

and buckle release, just like they are 

following Standard No. 213’s frontal 

impact test. 

Work Preceding This Final Rule 

NHTSA published the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding 

this final rule on January 28, 2014 (79 

FR 4570).13 Enhanced side impact 

protection for children has long been a 

priority for NHTSA. NHTSA laid the 

necessary groundwork for this final rule 

over the years preceding and since the 

NPRM.14

To develop the NPRM, NHTSA 

examined data on the fatalities of young 

children to see how children are killed 

and injured in side crashes, the 

characteristics of the crashes that are 

injuring them, and the types of injuries 

they suffer. Among CRS-restrained 

children killed in side crashes, about 60 

percent were in near-side impacts,15

leading NHTSA to focus development 

on a near-side sled test. Intrusion was 

found to be an important causative 

factor for moderate to serious injury, 

which led NHTSA to concentrate on 

developing a side impact test procedure 

that included intrusion into the 

occupant space.16 Data indicated that 

children restrained in child restraints 

exhibited more head injuries (59 

percent) compared to torso injuries (22 

percent) and injuries to extremities (14 

percent). NHTSA used these and other 

data to develop the first-of-its-kind 

safety standard on child side impact 

protection involving a near-side impact 

with a longitudinal crash component 

and an intruding vehicle door. 

Following publication of the NPRM, 

NHTSA conducted a multi-year research 

program from 2014 to 2016 to broaden 

the assessment of the Q3s in providing 

repeatable and reproducible test results 

in side impact testing. NHTSA designed 

a test program involving Humanetics 

Innovative Solutions, Inc. (a dummy 

manufacturer), several private dummy 

owners (CRS manufacturers), two 

independent testing labs, and NHTSA’s 

Vehicle Research and Test Center 

(VRTC). This work validated the 

performance specifications of the 

NPRM, thus better ensuring that all 

future Q3s dummies will be uniform, 

and provided information for NHTSA to 

use in prescribing specifications for the 

Q3s. Information from that program 

refined the set of engineering drawings 

and the series of dummy-only impact 

tests used for production and 

qualification of the Q3s.17 The test 

program enabled NHTSA to produce a 

set of fully-vetted engineering 

specifications and an objective set of 

qualification standards. These materials 

guarantee a high level of uniformity in 

any conforming Q3s unit used to assess 

CRS performance in a side impact test. 

Through research from 2015 to 2017, 

NHTSA adjusted the side impact sled 

test assembly to reduce variability in 

results and more closely align the 

assembly with current vehicle seats. In 

2017, NHTSA undertook fleet testing to 

obtain current data of CRS performance 

in side impacts using the refined side 

impact seat assembly. These research 

projects are discussed in detail in 

sections below in this preamble. 

FMVSS No. 214 and No. 226 

FMVSS No. 214 played a critical role 

in developing this final rule. NHTSA 

designed the side impact test to 

replicate the FMVSS No. 214 moving 

deformable barrier (MDB) test, as the 

MDB test simulates a full-scale severe 

intersection collision of an impacting 

vehicle (represented by a 1,360 kg 

(3,000 lb) MDB) traveling at 48.3 km/h 

(30 mph) striking the side of a test 

vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph).18

The MDB test replicated in this final 

rule involves a change of velocity of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39237 

19FMVSS No. 214, S9. The pole test protects 

against side crashes of passenger vehicles into 

structures such as telephone poles and trees. It is 

a near-side impact. NHTSA established FMVSS No. 

226 (49 CFR 571. 226) in 2011 (76 FR 3212). The 

standard was phased in starting in 2013, with full 

compliance required for vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2017. 

20 In the final rule adopting the pole test into 

FMVSS No. 214, NHTSA anticipated that side 

curtain air bags installed to meet FMVSS No. 214 

would also be the countermeasure to meet the thenpending ejection mitigation standard. NHTSA 

anticipated side impact curtain air bags would 

extend to rear seating positions, and that occupants 

in rear seating positions would benefit from the side 

curtain air bags in side impacts. NHTSA stated: 

‘‘We believe that manufacturers will install curtains 

in increasing numbers of vehicles in response to 

this [FMVSS No. 214] final rule, the voluntary 

commitment, and in anticipation of NHTSA’s 

ejection mitigation rulemaking. The curtains will 

provide head protection to front and rear seat 

occupants in side impacts.’’ 72 FR 51911, 51933; 

Sept. 11, 2007. 

21 Data show that door intrusion is a causative 

factor for moderate and serious injury to children 

in side impacts. Arbogast, supra. 

22Arbogast, et al., ‘‘Injury Risks for Children in 

Child Restraint Systems in Side Impact Crashes’’ 

(2004); Arbogast, et al., ‘‘Protection of Children 

Restrained in Child Safety Seats in Side Impact 

Crashes’’ (2010); McCray et al., ‘‘Injuries to Children 

One to Three Years Old in Side Impact Crashes’’ 

(2007). 

23As noted earlier, the final rule applies to CRSs 

designed for children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) 

and with standing height up to 1100 mm (43.3 

inches), which covers more than 97 percent of 3- 

year-old children and about 85 percent of 4-yearold children. The Q3s child dummy has weight and 

height representative of an average 3-year-old child. 

24Out of the 107 models of forward-facing CRSs 

with internal harness (convertibles, combination 

and all-in-one CRSs) in the market, 85.9% have a 

maximum weight recommendation of 65 pounds, 

10.2% have a maximum weight recommendation of 

40 pounds and only 3.7% have a 50 pound 

maximum weight recommendation. 

25The agency determined the height that a 

booster seat raises a seated child (boosting height) 

by measuring the difference in the H-point (marker 

on the hip) of the HIII–6-year-old dummy when the 

dummy is seated on the side impact seat assembly 

specified in this final rule (SISA) with no booster 

seat and when the dummy is seated on the SISA 

in a booster seat. The boosting height measured for 

15 booster seat models ranged from 43 mm (1.69 

inches) to 104 mm (4.09 inches) with an average 

boosting height of 83 mm (3.26 inches). A 

document with the measurements is docketed with 

this final rule. 

26 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020, Docket 

NHTSA–2020–0093. Section 31501(b) of MAP–21 

Subtitle E, directed NHTSA to undertake 

rulemaking to amend the standard seat assembly in 

FMVSS No. 213 ‘‘to better simulate a single 

representative motor vehicle rear seat.’’ Among 

other matters, as part of updating the standard seat 

assembly, the NPRM proposed replacing the lap 

belt currently on the test assembly with a lap and 

Continued 

approximately 30.5 km/h (19 mph). 

NHTSA’s analysis of field data (NASS– 

CDS 1995–2009) found that 92 percent 

of near-side crashes for restrained 

children (0 to 12 years-old) involved a 

change in velocity of 30.5 km/h (19 

mph) or lower. 

NHTSA designed this rule to account 

for the safety countermeasures installed 

in vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 214 as 

practicably possible, to make a realistic 

assessment of how a CRS will perform 

when subjected to a side crash in the 

real world. To achieve this, NHTSA 

used compliance test data from MDB 

tests where the vehicle passed the 

FMVSS No. 214 test, to replicate the 

characteristics of passenger-carrying 

vehicles on the road. Furthermore, 

NHTSA designed FMVSS No. 213a to 

replicate a collision of the striking MDB 

with a small vehicle rather than a larger 

vehicle. NHTSA sought to replicate the 

characteristics of a small passenger car, 

as opposed to a larger vehicle, because 

smaller cars generally present a more 

demanding side impact test condition 

than larger vehicles, since smaller cars 

generally have a higher change in 

velocity than larger ones when impacted 

by the same MDB. Testing child 

restraints under the more severe 

condition better ensures they will 

provide the threshold level of protection 

required by the standard in both small 

cars and large cars than if they were 

assessed under conditions replicating 

large cars alone. 

Standard No. 214’s pole test and 

FMVSS No. 226, Ejection mitigation,19

were also integral to development of 

this final rule. To meet the pole test, 

manufacturers equip passenger vehicles 

with side air bags in front seating 

positions to protect against 

unreasonable risk of head and chest 

injuries. To meet the pole test and 

FMVSS No. 226 requirements, 

manufacturers install side curtain air 

bags 20 to deploy in both side impacts 

and in rollovers, and design them to 

cover all side windows at the vehicle’s 

front, second and third rows, from the 

roof line to the window sill. 

Consequently, vehicles are currently 

produced with side curtain air bags that 

cover the entire side window for front 

and rear row seats in both side impacts 

and rollovers. NHTSA developed 

FMVSS No. 213a recognizing that these 

side curtain air bags can protect 

passengers in rear seating positions 

against unreasonable risk of head injury 

in side impact crashes, including older 

children in booster seats. 

Details of This Final Rule 

The side impact sled test adopted by 

this final rule tests child restraints in a 

manner that simulates the vehicle 

acceleration and intruding door in a 

realistic side impact.21 The test seat 

assembly on which a CRS is tested 

replicates the rear seating position 

nearest to the side impact (near-side 

impact), as data show near-side impacts 

are more injurious than far-side impacts, 

accounting for 81 percent of moderateto-critical injuries to restrained 0- to 3- 

year-old children involved in side 

crashes. Most of these moderate-tocritical injuries in near-side impacts are 

due to impact with interior surfaces in 

the vehicle, and in near-side impacts, 

the interior surface is usually the 

intruding door.22 In far-side impacts, the 

impact surfaces vary considerably 

depending on the crash dynamics, and 

therefore are difficult to characterize. 

For these reasons, standards established 

worldwide for side impact protection of 

children focus on near-side impacts, 

and FMVSS No. 214’s moving 

deformable barrier and pole tests 

involve only near-side impacts. 

This final rule applies to CRSs 

designed to seat children weighing up to 

18.1 kg (40 lb). NHTSA did not specify 

a limit above 18.1 kg (40 lb) because 

there is no side impact dummy 

representative of children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) that is proven 

to provide the reliable test 

measurements required of a test 

instrument used in the FMVSSs.23

NHTSA is concerned that, without a 

valid test dummy, CRSs for heavier 

children may ‘‘pass’’ a side impact test 

with a smaller dummy but the dummy 

would not meaningfully assess the 

performance of the CRS in protecting a 

larger child. Raising the limit above 18.1 

kg (40 lb) could engender a false sense 

of security that the CRS adequately 

protects the heavier (larger) children 

when, in fact, the assessment of 

performance was meaningless. 

NHTSA also decided to adopt a 40-lb 

weight limit after considering the 

overall side impact protection provided 

by the FMVSSs and the ongoing and 

potential work on child restraint safety. 

As explained above, FMVSS No. 214’s 

side impact tests were highly important 

to NHTSA’s design of FMVSS No. 213a 

and implementation of MAP–21. 

Children over 40 lb would be provided 

side impact protection by remaining in 

a CRS meeting FMVSS No. 213a for as 

long as the manufacturer recommends, 

which typically exceeds a weight above 

40 lb.24 When children outgrow their 

safety seats, they transition to a booster 

seat, which on average raises a seated 

child by 82 mm (3.22 inches),25 which 

would position the child high enough to 

benefit from the vehicle’s side curtain 

air bags installed to meet Standards Nos. 

214 and 226. 

On November 2, 2020, NHTSA 

proposed to update FMVSS No. 213’s 

frontal impact test requirements, 

including the seat assembly and other 

changes to the standard.26 In that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39238 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

shoulder belt. MAP–21 requires NHTSA to issue a 

final rule adopting an updated seat assembly. 27 85 FR at 69427, col. 3. NHTSA currently 

recommends that children riding forward-facing 

should be restrained in CRSs with internal 

harnesses (car safety seats) as long as possible 

before transitioning to a booster seat. https://

www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-boosterseats#age-size-rec. FMVSS No. 213 currently 

permits booster seats only to be recommended for 

children weighing at least 13.6 kg (30 lb) (S5.5.2(f)). 

Based on an analysis of field data and other 

considerations, NHTSA believes the 13.6 kg (30 lb) 

value should be raised. Thirty pounds corresponds 

to the weight of a 50th percentile 3-year-old, and 

to the weight of a 95th percentile 18-month-old; i.e., 

children too small to be safely protected in a 

booster seat. In the November 2, 2020 NPRM, 

NHTSA proposed to amend S5.5.2(f) to raise the 

13.6 kg (30 lb) limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb), which is 

greater than the weight of a 97th percentile 3-yearold (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the weight 

of an 85th percentile 4-year-old. 

28MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale) 

represents the maximum injury severity of an 

occupant based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale 

(AIS). AIS ranks individual injuries by body region 

on a scale of 1 to 6: 1 = minor, 2 = moderate, 3 

= serious, 4 = severe, 5 = critical, and 6 = maximum 

(untreatable). MAIS 3 + injuries represent MAIS 

injuries at an AIS level of 3, 4, 5, or 6. 

29NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (FRIA) that discusses issues 

relating to the potential costs, benefits, and other 

impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is 

available in the docket for this final rule and may 

be obtained by downloading it or by contacting 

Docket Management at the address or telephone 

number provided at the beginning of this document. 

30https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/ 

transportation-policy/revised-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis. 

NPRM, NHTSA proposed that booster 

seats must be labeled as suitable only 

for children weighing more than 18.1 kg 

(40 lb).27 This final rule is consistent 

with that proposal to ensure that 

children remain in car seats providing 

side impact protection longer, and will 

transition to booster seats only when 

they are large enough to take advantage 

of the vehicle’s side air bag 

countermeasures. 

Estimated Benefits and Costs 

NHTSA estimates that this final rule 

will reduce 3.7 fatalities and 41 (40.9) 

non-fatal injuries (MAIS 28 1–5) 

annually (see Table 1 below).29 The 

equivalent lives and the monetized 

benefits were estimated in accordance 

with guidance issued in March 2021 by 

the Office of the Secretary 30 regarding 

the treatment of value of a statistical life 

in regulatory analyses. This final rule is 

estimated to save 15.1 equivalent lives 

annually. The monetized annual 

benefits of this final rule at 3 and 7 

percent discount rates are $169.0 

million and $152.2 million, respectively 

(Table 2). NHTSA estimates that the 

annual cost of this final rule is 

approximately $7.37 million. The 

countermeasures may include larger 

wings and padding with energy 

absorption characteristics that cost, on 

average, approximately $0.58 per CRS 

designed for children in a weight range 

that includes weights up to 40 lb (both 

forward-facing and rear-facing) (Table 3 

below). The annual net benefits are 

estimated to be $144.8 million (7 

percent discount rate) to $161.6 million 

(3 percent discount rate) as shown in 

Table 4. Because this final rule is cost 

beneficial just by comparing costs to 

monetized economic benefits, and there 

is a net benefit, NHTSA has not 

provided a net cost per equivalent life 

saved as there is no additional value 

provided by such an estimate. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL ESTIMATED BENEFITS

Fatalities ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.7 

Non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1 to 5) ........................................................................................................................................................... 41 (40.9) 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED MONETIZED BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Economic 

benefits 

Value of 

statistical life Total benefits 

3 Percent Discount Rate ............................................................................................................. $26.24 $142.72 $168.97 

7 Percent Discount Rate ............................................................................................................. 23.63 128.53 152.16 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED COSTS

[2020 Economics] 

Average cost per CRS designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 40 lb ................................................... $0.58. 

Total annual cost ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7.37 million. 

TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Annualized 

costs 

Annualized 

benefits Net benefits 

3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ $7.37 $168.97 $161.60 

7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ 7.37 152.16 144.79 

How This Final Rule Differs From the 

NPRM 

For the convenience of the reader, the 

notable changes from the NPRM are 

described below. They are explained in 

detail in relevant sections throughout 

this preamble. More minor changes (e.g., 

positioning the arm of the Q3s) are not 

highlighted below but are discussed in 

the sections of this preamble relating to 

the topic. 

• The side impact seat assembly 

(SISA) specified in this final rule is 

slightly different from the proposed 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39239 

31 85 FR 69388, supra. 

32There are acceleration and deceleration type 

sled systems. An acceleration sled is accelerated 

from rest to a prescribed acceleration profile to 

simulate the occupant compartment deceleration in 

a crash event. In comparison, a deceleration sled is 

first accelerated to a target velocity and then is 

decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile to 

simulate the same event. 

33An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed 

to be easily used inside and outside of the vehicle. 

They typically are sold for use by children in a 

weight range from newborn to 18.5 kg (40 lb). An 

infant carrier is designed to be easily removed from 

the vehicle and has a carrying handle that allows 

caregivers to tote the infant outside of the vehicle 

without having to remove the child from the 

restraint system. Some come with a base that stays 

inside the vehicle, enabling a simple means of 

reattaching the carrier when it is used as a CRS. 

This change is consistent with the November 2, 

2020 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213’s frontal crash test 

requirements. 

34This statement assumes the carriers are not 

designed to accommodate child weights over 13.6 

kg (30 lb). 

35As used in this document, ‘‘children 3-yearsold and younger’’ includes children up to the day 

before they turn 4-years-old. 

36Enriquez, J. (2021, May). The 2019 National 

Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT 

HS 813 033). National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

Api/Public/ViewPublication/813033. 37Children, Traffic Safety Facts—2009 data, DOT 

HS 811 387, NHTSA, https://crashstats.nhtsa.

dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387. 38 ‘‘Revised Estimates of Child Restraint 

Effectiveness,’’ Research Note, supra. 39 Details of the analysis method are provided in 

the supporting technical document in the docket for 

the NPRM. 40 Details of the updated analysis are provided in 

the supporting technical document in the docket for 

the NPRM. 41National Center for Statistics and Analysis 

(2019, March). Lives saved in 2017 by restraint use 

and minimum-drinking-age laws (Traffic Safety 

Facts Crash·Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 683). 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Available at: https://crashstats.

nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/ 

8126834. 

SISA in four ways: aspects of the 

representative vehicle seat cushion 

(characteristics of the seat foam), the 

height of the seat back, location of the 

child restraint anchorages and seat belts, 

and vertical position of the door and 

armrest. These changes were made to 

make it easier to source foam, and to 

reflect real-world vehicle seats more 

accurately. The changes align with the 

November 2, 2020 NPRM that proposes 

to update FMVSS No. 213’s frontal 

impact test seat assembly.31 Stiffening 

structures were also added to the sliding 

seat to minimize vibrations in 

compliance testing. 

• The tolerance in the relative 

velocity (V0) between the sliding seat 

and the door assembly at time of initial 

contact (T0) is reduced in the final rule 

from the proposed 31.3 ± 0.8 km/h to 

31.3 ± 0.64 km/h to improve 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test. 

• The NPRM proposed that the test 

platform velocity during the time of 

interaction of the door with the CRS 

would be no greater than V0 and not less 

than V0¥1 km/h. This final rule 

specifies the test platform velocity as no 

lower than 2.5 km/h less than its 

velocity at time = T0. This change 

provides more flexibility to different test 

facilities to meet the test specifications 

while maintaining satisfactory test 

repeatability and reproducibility. 

• This final rule includes 

specifications for a relative door 

velocity corridor (the velocity of the 

simulated door assembly relative to the 

sliding seat) to improve the repeatability 

and reproducibility of the test 

procedure. NHTSA requested comment 

in the NPRM on the merits of a corridor 

and decided, after reviewing the 

comments, that a corridor increases the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test when different types of sled 

systems 32 are used. 

• NHTSA tentatively believed in the 

NPRM that CRS performance would not 

be affected if a CRS were attached to the 

SISA by a seat belt or by the child 

restraint anchorage system, assuming 

that a seat belt would be routed through 

a belt path near to where the anchorage 

attachment points are located. NHTSA 

thus proposed to test child restraints by 

attaching them only by the child 

restraint anchorage system, and 

requested comment on the issue. 

Several commenters supported testing 

with the seat belt attachment in addition 

to the child restraint anchorage system 

attachment. After considering the 

comments, and after observing that 

some newer child restraint designs have 

belt paths no longer near the CRS’s 

anchorage attachment points, NHTSA 

has included a test configuration using 

a Type 2 seat belt (lap and shoulder 

belt) with the CRS’s top tether attached, 

if provided. 

• The NPRM proposed using the 12- 

month-old CRABI dummy to test child 

restraints recommended for children 

weighing 5 to 10 kg (11 to 22 lb) and the 

Q3s dummy (representative of a 3-yearold child) to test child restraints for 

children weighing 10 to 18.1 kg (22 to 

40 lb). After reviewing comments on 

this issue, NHTSA has decided to raise 

the 10 kg (22 lb) dividing line to 13.6 

kg (30 lb) so that infant carriers would 

not be subject to testing with the Q3s 3- 

year-old dummy.33 Testing with the Q3s 

does not make sense as the dummy is 

too large to fit an infant carrier and is 

not representative of the children for 

whom the restraint is recommended. 

Testing infant carriers with only the 

CRABI 12-month-old dummy better 

aligns the standard’s test requirements 

with real world use of the restraints.34

II. Safety Need 

The motor vehicle occupant fatality 

rate among children 3-years-old 35 and 

younger has declined from 4.5 in 1975 

to 1.1 in 2019 (per 100,000 occupants). 

This decline in fatality rate is partially 

attributed to the increased use of child 

restraint systems. The 2019 National 

Survey of the Use of Booster Seats 

(NSUBS) found that restraint use in the 

rear row (excluding third or further 

rows) was 98 percent for children less 

than 1-year-old, 95 percent for 1- to 3- 

year-old, and 88 percent for 4- to 7-yearold.36

According to the 2019 FARS data 

files, there were 36,096 persons killed in 

motor vehicle crashes in 2019, 177 of 

whom were children aged 3 and 

younger killed in passenger vehicle 

crashes. Among the 177 child occupant 

fatalities, 44 (25 percent) were 

unrestrained, 7 (4 percent) were 

restrained by vehicle seat belts, 111 (63 

percent) were restrained in CRSs, and 

13 (7 percent) had unknown restraint 

use.37

In 1996, the agency estimated the 

effectiveness of CRSs and found the 

devices to reduce fatalities by 71 

percent for children younger than 1- 

year-old and by 54 percent for toddlers 

1- to 4-years-old in passenger vehicles.38

For this rulemaking, the agency updated 

the 1996 effectiveness estimates by 

conducting a similar analysis using the 

FARS data files for the years 1995– 

2009.39 In the updated analysis,40 only 

non-rollover frontal and side crashes of 

passenger cars and LTVs were 

considered. CRS effectiveness was 

estimated for each crash mode. Due to 

small sample size of unrestrained 

children less than 1-year-old, the 0- to 

1-year-old age group was combined with 

the 1- to 3-year-old age group for 

determining CRS effectiveness for each 

crash mode. The results indicate that in 

non-rollover frontal crashes, CRSs 

currently in use are 53 percent effective 

in preventing fatalities among children 

0- to 3-years-old and 43 percent 

effective among children 4- to 7-yearsold. In non-rollover side crashes, CRSs 

currently in use are 42 percent effective 

in preventing fatalities among 0- to 3- 

year-old children and 51 percent 

effective among 4- to 7-year-old 

children. 

NHTSA estimates that the lives of 325 

children 3-years-old and younger were 

saved in 2017 due to the use of child 

restraint systems.41

Failure to use proper occupant 

restraints is a significant factor in a large 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39240 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

42Sherwood, C.P., Ferguson, S.A., Crandall, J.R., 

‘‘Factors Leading to Crash Fatalities to Children in 

Child Restraints,’’ 47th Annual Proceedings of the 

Association for the Advancement of Automotive 

Medicine (AAAM), September 2003. 

43The 2005–2009 FARS analysis presented in the 

NPRM, showed 31 percent fatalities of children 0- 

to 12-years-old restrained in rear seats of light 

passenger vehicles and in CRSs were in side 

impact. The 2015–2019 FARS analysis shows only 

24.5 percent of fatalities in side impacts, however, 

the difference in the figures are attributed to the 

changing available variables in FARS not a decrease 

in side impact fatalities. The 2005–2009 FARS 

analysis was done using ‘‘IMPACT2 (most damaged 

area)’’ while the 2015–2019 was done using 

‘‘IMPACT1 (area of initial contact), as IMPACT2 

was retired. 

number of child occupant fatalities 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes. In 

addition, fatalities among children 

properly restrained in child restraints 

are often attributed to the severity of the 

crash. Sherwood 42 examined the FARS 

database for the year 2000 and 

determined that there were 621 child 

occupant fatalities in the age range of 0 

to 5 years. Among these 621 fatalities, 

143 (23 percent) children were reported 

to be in child restraints. Detailed police 

reports were available for 92 of the 143 

fatally injured children restrained in 

CRSs. Sherwood examined these 92 

police reports and determined that half 

of the 92 fatalities were in un-survivable 

crashes, 12 percent of the fatalities were 

judged to result from gross misuse of 

child restraints, 16 percent in noncatastrophic side impacts, and 13 

percent in non-catastrophic frontal 

impacts. Sherwood noted that side 

impacts accounted for the largest 

number of fatalities (40 percent), and in 

all side impact crashes involving child 

fatalities, there was vehicle intrusion at 

the child’s seating position. 

In-Depth Study of Fatalities Among 

Child Occupants 

The agency further examined the realworld crash databases managed by the 

agency (FARS (2015–2019) and the 

National Automotive Sampling SystemCrashworthiness Data System (NASS– 

CDS) 2001–2015) to better understand 

fatalities to children restrained in child 

restraints when involved in side 

crashes. 

First, NHTSA categorized the crash 

cases involving children (0- to 12-yearsold) seated in rear seating positions, by 

restraint use, crash type, and child age. 

See Tables 5 and 6, below. 

TABLE 5—AVERAGE ANNUAL CRASH FATALITIES AMONG CHILDREN 0- TO 12-YEARS-OLD IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF

LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES CATEGORIZED BY RESTRAINT TYPE AND AGE

[FARS 2015–2019] 

Restraint 

Age (years) 

Total 

Under 1 1–3 4–7 8–12 

None ..................................................................................... 7.2 24.6 50.6 67.0 149.4 

Adult Belt .............................................................................. 0.8 8.2 36.8 77.0 122.8 

CRS ...................................................................................... 40.6 96.6 69.2 6.4 212.8 

Unknown .............................................................................. 3.2 9.4 15.0 12.4 40.0 

Other .................................................................................... 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.2 

Total .............................................................................. 51.8 139.0 172.2 163.2 526.2 

Annually on average between 2015 

and 2019, there were 526 crash fatalities 

among children 0- to 12-years-old seated 

in rear seating positions of light 

vehicles. Among these fatalities, on 

average 213 (40 percent) were children 

restrained in CRSs (137 were 0- to 3- 

years-old and 76 were 4- to 12-yearsold). Nearly 64 percent of the CRS 

restrained child fatalities were children 

0- to 3-years-old. 

As shown in the last column of Table 

6, among the 213 fatalities of children 

0- to 12-years-old restrained in rear seats 

of light passenger vehicles and in CRSs, 

approximately 31 percent occurred in 

frontal crashes, 25 percent in side 

crashes, 22 percent in rollovers, and 19 

percent in rear crashes. Approximately 

55 percent of side impact fatalities 

(28.8/52.2) were in near-side impacts. 

(‘‘Far-side’’ position means the outboard 

seating position on the opposite side of 

the point of impact or the center seating 

position.) 

TABLE 6—AVERAGE ANNUAL CRASH FATALITIES AMONG CHILDREN 0- TO 12-YEARS-OLD IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF

LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES AND RESTRAINED IN CRSS BY CRASH MODE AND AGE

[FARS 2015–2019] 43

Crash mode 

Age (years) 

Total Percent 

total <1 1–3 4–7 8–12 

Rollover .................................................... 8.0 21.8 15.4 1.6 46.8 22.0 

Front ......................................................... 13.6 30.8 21.4 0.8 66.6 31.3 

Side .......................................................... 10.2 23.4 16.2 2.4 52.2 24.5 

Near-side .................................................. 6.2 11.6 9.2 1.8 28.8 13.5 

Far-side .................................................... 3.8 11.4 6.8 0.6 22.6 10.6 

Unknown-side .......................................... 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.4 

Rear ......................................................... 7.8 17.0 14.0 1.6 40.4 19.0 

Other ........................................................ 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.4 1.6 

Unknown .................................................. 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.0 3.4 1.6 

Total .................................................. 40.6 96.6 69.2 6.4 212.8 100.0 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39241 

44Hanna, R., ‘‘Children Injured in Motor Vehicle 

Traffic Crashes,’’ DOT HS 811 325, NHTSA, May 

2010, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/ 

811325.pdf, last accessed on July 2, 2012. 

Of the side impact crash fatalities 

among CRS restrained children 0- to 12- 

years-old in rear seating positions, 

nearly 62 percent of near side fatalities 

((6.2 + 11.6)/28.8) were to children 

under the age of 4. 

In-Depth Study of Injuries to Child 

Occupants in Motor Vehicle Crashes 

In 2010, the agency published an 

analysis of the NASS—General 

Estimates System (GES) data for the 

years 1999–2008 to better understand 

injuries to children in motor vehicle 

traffic crashes.44 The analysis was 

conducted for three different child age 

groups (<1-year-old, 1- to 3-years-old, 

and 4- to 7-years-old) and for different 

crash modes (rollover, front, side, and 

rear). The analysis indicated that CRSs 

are effective in reducing incapacitating 

injuries in all three child age groups 

examined and in all four crash modes. 

The analysis found that rollover crashes 

accounted for the highest rate of 

incapacitating injuries, with the 

incidence rate among unrestrained 

children (26 percent) being nearly 3 

times that for children restrained in 

CRSs (9 percent). In near-side impact 

crashes, unrestrained children 

(incidence rate = 8 percent) were 8 

times more likely to sustain 

incapacitating injuries than children in 

CRSs (incidence rate = 1 percent). 

The agency analyzed NASS–CDS for 

the years 2001–2015 to obtain annual 

estimates of moderate or higher severity 

injuries (MAIS 2+ injuries) among 

children of different ages in different 

restraint environment and crash modes. 

See Table 7 and 8. 

TABLE 7—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0- TO 12-YEARS-OLD CHILDREN WITH MAIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING

POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY RESTRAINT TYPE

[NASS–CDS 2001–2015] 

Restraint 

Age (years) 

Total Percent of 

total Under 1 1–3 4–7 8–12 

None ......................................................... 15 94 530 575 1,214 20.0 

Adult Belt .................................................. 0 91 489 860 1,440 23.8 

CRS .......................................................... 181 731 504 36 1,452 24.0 

Unknown if Used ...................................... 1 28 323 146 498 8.2 

Total .................................................. 378 1,675 2,350 1,653 6,056 100.0 

Between 2001 and 2015 on average 

annually there were an estimated 6,056 

twelve and younger children with MAIS 

2 + injuries seated in the rear seats of 

light passenger vehicles with 2,053 of 

these injured occupants being younger 

than 4- years-old. Approximately 1,452 

CRS restrained children 12-years-old 

and younger sustained MAIS 2+injuries, 

among which 912 (63 percent) were 

children younger than 4-years-old and 

504 (35 percent) were 4- to 7-year-old 

children. 

The NASS–CDS 2001–2015 data files 

were further analyzed to determine 

crash characteristics. Table 8 presents 

the average annual estimates of 0- to 12- 

year-old children with MAIS 2+ injuries 

in rear seating positions of light 

passenger vehicles. Approximately 38 

percent of the children were injured in 

frontal crashes, 32 percent in side 

crashes, 24 percent in rollover crashes 

and 5 percent in rear crashes. 

TABLE 8—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0- TO 12-YEARS-OLD CHILDREN WITH MAIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING

POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH MODE

[NASS–CDS 2001–2015] 

Crash mode 

Age (years) 

Total Percent of 

total <1 1–3 4–7 8–12 

Rollover .................................................... 13 150 396 543 1,102 23.9 

Front ......................................................... 62 329 710 658 1,759 38.2 

Side .......................................................... 46 373 691 387 1,497 32.5 

Near-Side .......................................... 31 276 330 260 897 19.5 

Far-Side ............................................ 11 58 360 126 555 12.1 

Unknown-Side ................................... 4 39 1 1 45 1.0 

Rear ......................................................... 78 76 49 29 232 5.0 

Other ........................................................ 0 14 0 0 14 0.3 

Total .................................................. 199 942 1,846 1,617 4,604 100.0 

To better understand the crash 

characteristics of children restrained in 

child restraints, a similar analysis as 

that shown in Table 8 was conducted 

except that only the cases where the 

children were restrained in CRSs were 

included in the analysis. The results are 

presented in Table 9. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39242 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

45Subtitle E is entitled ‘‘Child Safety Standards.’’ 

46NHTSA Report to Congress, ‘‘Child Restraint 

Systems, Transportation Recall Enhancement, 

Accountability, and Documentation Act,’’ February 

2004. www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/ 

NHTSAReports/TREAD.pdf. 

47Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 

FR 21836, May 1, 2002. 

48 Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0108–0032. 

49There are still no child test dummies that are 

suitable for use in a side impact FMVSS other than 

the Q3s. 

TABLE 9—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0- TO 12-YEARS-OLD CRS RESTRAINED CHILDREN WITH MAIS 2+ INJURIES

IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH MODE

[NASS–CDS 2001–2015] 

Crash mode 

Age (years) 

Total Percent of 

total Under 1 1–3 4–7 8–12 

Rollover .................................................... 12 60 102 0 174 12.0 

Front ......................................................... 55 293 233 18 599 41.2 

Side .......................................................... 42 323 139 18 522 35.9 

Near-side .......................................... 31 272 44 18 336 25.1 

Far-side ............................................. 11 51 95 0 157 10.8 

Rear ......................................................... 74 54 31 0 159 10.29 

Total .................................................. 183 730 505 36 1,454 100.0 

For MAIS 2+ injured 12-years-old and 

younger child occupants in passenger 

vehicles restrained in CRSs in rear 

seating positions, 41 percent of the 

injuries were in frontal crashes, 36 

percent in side crashes, 12 percent in 

rollovers, and 10 percent in rear crashes. 

About 64 percent (336/522) of the 

occupants in side crashes were in nearside impacts. 

In the above analyses, some of these 

injuries and fatalities involved children 

in seats that were incorrectly used. 

However, NHTSA does not have 

complete data on the number accidents 

that involved misuse because accident 

databases do not generally collect data 

on how child restraints were used. 

III. Statutory Mandate 

Subtitle E of the ‘‘Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ 

(MAP–21), Public Law 112–141 (July 6, 

2012),45 included Section 31501(a), 

which stated that, not later than two 

years after the date of enactment of the 

Act, the Secretary (NHTSA by 

delegation) shall issue a final rule 

amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 213 to improve the 

protection of children seated in child 

restraint systems during side impact 

crashes. 

This final rule accords with MAP–21 

and implements Congress’s intent to 

implement a side impact standard for 

child restraints. In 2004, NHTSA 

informed Congress 46 that, while 

enhanced side impact protection for 

children in child restraints was a 

priority for NHTSA, NHTSA had 

initiated a side impact rulemaking in 

response to the Transportation Recall 

Enhancement, Accountability and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act but found 

the extent of the uncertainties prevented 

adoption of a side impact performance 

test for CRSs.47 NHTSA informed 

Congress when the agency withdrew the 

rulemaking that NHTSA would 

continue its efforts to obtain detailed 

side crash data identifying specific 

injury mechanisms involving children 

and would work toward developing 

countermeasures using test dummies, 

including the European Q3 dummy then 

available, for improved side impact 

protection. 

In March 2011, NHTSA’s Vehicle 

Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking 

and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013, 

announced the agency’s intention to 

issue an NPRM in 2012 on child 

restraint side impact protection.48

NHTSA stated in the plan that it was 

planning to ‘‘[p]ropose test procedures 

in FMVSS No. 213 to assess child 

restraint performance in near-side 

impacts. Amend Part 572 to add the Q3s 

dummy, the 3-year-old side impact 

version of the Q-series of child 

dummies.’’ 

MAP–21 was enacted soon thereafter, 

with a short deadline for issuance of a 

final rule. Given the context of NHTSA’s 

work in this area, NHTSA has 

interpreted Subtitle E as directing 

NHTSA to apply the knowledge gained 

since its 2004 report to Congress to 

initiate and complete the side impact 

regulation as the agency had planned. 

There were no child test dummies other 

than the Q3s available when MAP–21 

was enacted that were proven 

sufficiently durable and reliable for use 

in the FMVSS No. 213 side impact 

test.49 There was not enough time to 

develop and validate a different test 

procedure, or new child side impact test 

dummies, within the time constraints of 

Subtitle E. 

MAP–21 required a final rule 

‘‘amending FMVSS No. 213,’’ which 

NHTSA has interpreted to mean that the 

rulemaking must be conducted in 

accordance with the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 

30101 et seq.) (Safety Act). NHTSA has 

developed a standard that will improve 

the protection of children seated in 

child restraint systems during side 

impacts, in accordance with MAP–21, 

while meeting the criteria of Section 

30111 of the Safety Act. Standard No. 

213a meets the need for safety, is stated 

in objective terms, and is reasonable, 

practicable, and appropriate for the 

CRSs for which it is prescribed. There 

are technical and practical reasons for 

applying the dynamic side impact test 

only to CRSs designed to seat children 

in a weight range that includes weights 

up to 18.1 kg (40 lb). 

For one, there is no side impact 

dummy representative of children 

weighing more than 40 lb that is proven 

to provide the test measurements 

required of a dummy used in the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

Without an appropriate test dummy, the 

data from a dynamic test would not 

provide a meaningful assessment of the 

performance of the CRS in protecting 

children of weights above 18.1 kg (40 

lb). Without a valid test dummy, CRSs 

for heavier children may ‘‘pass’’ a side 

impact test with the Q3s, but the Q3s 

would not meaningfully assess the 

performance of the CRS in protecting 

the heavier child. Raising the limit 

above 40 lb could engender a false sense 

of security that a restraint adequately 

protects the heavier children when, in 

fact, without a heavier test dummy, the 

standard would not be adequately 

assessing the restraint’s protection of 

these children. NHTSA believes 

Congress was aware of this limitation on 

the availability of test dummies when it 

enacted MAP–21, and did not want 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39243 

50 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3). 

51Children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) 

restrained in CRSs would have a seated height 

similar to the height of a 5th percentile adult 

female. The vehicle’s side curtain air bags are 

designed to protect occupants, including those of 

the size of a 5th percentile female, in side impacts 

and rollovers. 

52NHTSA estimates that CRSs are already 42 

percent effective in preventing death in side crashes 

of 0- to 3-year-old children. Supra. 

53SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. https://web.archive.org/ 

web/20131012130527/http://www.carseat.org/ 

Pictorial/InfantPict,1-11.pdf and https://

web.archive.org/web/20120915194832/http://

www.carseat.org/Pictorial/3-Five-%20Point-np.pdf. 

54Child restraint systems are highly effective in 

reducing the likelihood of death or serious injury 

in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA estimates that, for 

children less than 1-year-old, a child restraint can 

reduce the risk of fatality by 71 percent when used 

in a passenger car and by 58 percent when used in 

a pickup truck, van, or sport utility vehicle (light 

truck). ‘‘Revised Estimates of Child Restraint 

Effectiveness,’’ Research Note, National Center for 

Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

DOT HS 96855, December 1996. Child restraint 

effectiveness for children between the ages 1- to 4- 

years-old is 54 percent in passenger cars and 59 

percent in light trucks. Id. 

55NHTSA considered incorporating the side 

impact requirements into FMVSS No. 213, rather 

than in FMVSS No. 213a, but decided against doing 

so. MAP–21 directed NHTSA to undertake side and 

frontal impact test rulemakings in the same 

timeframe, with each involving different 

compliance schedules and different test dummies. 

NHTSA decided that combining the side and frontal 

test rulemakings into one standard (with each 

encompassing entirely new sled test systems and 

dynamic test requirements), could have made the 

revisions difficult to understand, particularly with 

Continued 

NHTSA to apply the new standard to a 

subset of CRSs that could not be 

sufficiently assessed for their 

performance in protecting a child in a 

side impact. Moreover, it does not seem 

sensible to require manufacturers to 

ensure their CRSs comply with the 

standard tested with the Q3s if the child 

restraints are not intended for, and will 

not be used with, children of the size 

represented by the Q3s. Thus, NHTSA 

does not consider it reasonable or 

appropriate 50 to apply this final rule to 

child restraints that are not 

recommended for children weighing 

between 13.6 kg (30 lb) and 18.1 kg (40 

lb). 

In addition, NHTSA drafted this final 

rule recognizing that children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in a 

child restraint will be seated high 

enough to benefit from a passenger 

vehicle’s side curtain air bags.51 In the 

November 2, 2020 NPRM proposing to 

amend FMVSS No. 213, supra, NHTSA 

proposed requiring booster seats to be 

labeled only for children weighing more 

than 18.1 kg (40 lb). If, because of that 

label, children are kept in safety seats 

until they are at least 18.1 kg (40 lb), 

they will be seated until that time in a 

CRS that will be certified to the side 

impact protection requirements of 

FMVSS No. 213a. Also, when they 

transition to a booster seat (or a child 

restraint with an internal harness 

intended for children weighing more 

than 18.1 kg (40 lb)), such booster seat 

or child restraint will lift them high 

enough to be protected by the vehicle’s 

side curtain air bags. That label will 

help ensure that children will remain in 

car seats longer and will only use 

booster seats when they are tall enough 

to take advantage of a vehicle’s side 

protection countermeasures. 

IV. Guiding Principles 

In addition to the considerations 

already discussed, the following 

principles also guided NHTSA’s 

decisions in developing this final rule. 

1. There is a safety need for this 

rulemaking notwithstanding the 

estimated effectiveness of child 

restraints in side impacts.52 Child 

restraint safety in side impacts can be 

increased. NHTSA has observed that 

increasing numbers of CRSs appear to 

have more side structure coverage (CRS 

side ‘‘wings’’) and side padding than 

before.53 Because the design of the side 

wings and stiffness of the padding are 

factors that affect the containment of the 

child dummy and the injury measures, 

NHTSA considers the side wing 

coverage and increased padding to be 

overall positive developments. 

However, because FMVSS No. 213 did 

not have a side impact test, a 

quantifiable assessment of the protective 

qualities of the features was heretofore 

not possible. Further, testing NHTSA 

conducted in developing this final rule 

indicate that not all side wings and 

padding protect the same, and in some 

cases, ‘‘more’’ of a countermeasure 

(padding, structure) was not necessarily 

‘‘better.’’ This final rule establishes 

performance requirements that ensure 

that the wings, padding, padding-like 

features, or other countermeasures 

employed to provide protection in side 

impacts will be engineered to attain at 

least a minimum threshold of 

performance that will reduce 

unreasonable risk of injury or fatality in 

side impacts. For CRS designs that have 

not yet incorporated side impact 

protection features, this final rule 

ensures they will. 

2. In making regulatory decisions on 

possible enhancements to CRS 

performance, NHTSA bears in mind the 

consumer acceptance of cost increases 

to a highly effective item of safety 

equipment.54 Any enhancement that 

would significantly raise the price of the 

restraints could potentially have an 

adverse effect on the sales and use of 

this equipment. The net effect on safety 

could be negative if the effect of sales 

losses exceeds the benefit of the 

improved performance of the restraints 

that are purchased, or if older child 

restraints that are not designed to meet 

current requirements were reused. Thus, 

to maximize the total safety benefits of 

its efforts on FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA 

must balance those improvements 

against impacts on the price of 

restraints. In addition, NHTSA must 

also consider the effects of improved 

performance on the ease of using child 

restraints. If the use of child restraints 

becomes overly complex or unwieldy, 

the misuse and nonuse of child 

restraints could increase, and the 

benefits engineered into the CRS not 

realized in the real world. 

3. NHTSA is guided by the principles 

for regulatory decision-making set forth 

in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ and 

E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review.’’ NHTSA’s 

assessment of the net effect on safety of 

this rulemaking was limited in some 

respects, however. Data are sparse on 

side crashes resulting in severe injuries 

or fatalities to children in CRSs. Data 

indicate that side crashes resulting in 

fatalities to children in CRSs mainly 

occur in very severe, un-survivable side 

impact conditions. A dynamic test 

involving a very high velocity impact 

may not be reasonable if ultimately the 

crash replicated were basically unsurvivable, or if the standard’s 

requirements were impracticable or 

resulted in CRSs that could not be used 

as a practical matter or used correctly. 

Another limiting factor was the absence 

of information comparing the real-world 

performance of ‘‘good’’ performing CRSs 

versus ‘‘poor’’ performing CRSs. 

Without these data, NHTSA had to use 

test data and injury curves to determine 

the effectiveness of possible 

countermeasures (e.g., side wings with 

strategically-placed energy-absorbing 

padding). 

V. Overview of the NPRM and 

Comments Received 

a. Overview of the NPRM 

NHTSA published the NPRM for this 

final rule on January 28, 2014 (79 FR 

4570, Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012). 

The NPRM proposed to amend FMVSS 

No. 213 to require CRSs designed to seat 

children in a weight range that includes 

weights up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) to meet 

side impact performance requirements 

in new FMVSS No. 213a, in addition to 

the requirements for frontal protection 

established in FMVSS No. 213.55 We 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39244 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

the new requirements for the frontal and side tests 

becoming effective on different dates. The agency 

decided to establish the side impact requirements 

separately in FMVSS No. 213a for clarity and plain 

language purposes. 

56The comment period was reopened until 

October 2, 2014 (79 FR 32211). JPMA petitioned to 

provide more time for child restraint manufacturers 

to obtain the Q3s dummy from the dummy 

manufacturer, arrange with test labs to evaluate 

their CRSs with it, conduct testing, and comment 

on the proposal. 

57The sled test was based on an acceleration sled 

system. An acceleration sled is accelerated from rest 

to a prescribed acceleration profile to simulate the 

occupant compartment deceleration in a crash 

event. In comparison, a ‘‘deceleration sled’’ is first 

accelerated to a target velocity and then is 

decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile to 

simulate the same event. The proposed acceleration 

sled was originally developed by the Takata 

Corporation. (Literature on development of the 

FMVSS No. 213a sled test sometimes refers to the 

sled as the ‘‘Takata’’ system.) 

58Obtained from an analysis of the National 

Automotive Sampling System—Crashworthiness 

Data System (NASS–CDS) data files for the years 

1995–2009 for restrained children 0- to 12-years-old 

in all restraint environments including seat belts 

and CRS. Details of the analysis are provided in the 

technical report in the docket for the NPRM (Docket 

No. NHTSA–2014–0012). 

59 79 FR at 4585. 60The child restraint anchorage system is 

commonly referred to as the LATCH system 

(‘‘Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children’’). 61This proposal predated a November 2, 2020 

NPRM in which NHTSA proposed prohibiting 

booster seats from being recommended for children 

weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb). If the November 

2020 proposal is adopted, the FMVSS No. 213a 

provision would be moot. 62The proposed weight ranges described in this 

paragraph have been adjusted in this final rule. 

NHTSA is adopting a 13.6 kg (30 lb) cut off instead 

of a 10-kg (22-lb) cut off. 

63A measurement of the head injury criterion that 

is based on the integration of resultant head 

acceleration over a 15-millisecond duration. 

64NHTSA interprets load bearing structure to 

mean a structure that: (1) transfers energy from the 

SISA and/or door to the CRS (e.g., installation 

components or CRS areas that contact the intruding 

door), or (2) transfers energy from the CRS to the 

occupant or vice versa (e.g., belts and components 

to restrain the child, CRS surfaces or parts 

transferring energy to the occupant). 

reopened the comment period on June 

4, 2014, in response to a petition from 

the Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (JPMA).56

NHTSA proposed performance 

requirements that child restraints must 

meet when tested dynamically in a sled 

test replicating a side crash. The NPRM 

proposed that child restraints would be 

tested while attached to a standardized 

seat assembly. The sled test 57 procedure 

was designed to replicate a two-vehicle 

side crash depicted in the moving 

deformable barrier (MDB) test of FMVSS 

No. 214 (striking vehicle traveling at 

48.3 km/h (30 mph)) impacting the 

struck vehicle traveling at 24.1 km/h (15 

mph). The proposed sled test simulated 

a near-side side impact of a small 

passenger car. FMVSS No. 213a’s side 

impact test represents a crash with a 

change of velocity of approximately 19 

mph. NHTSA’s analysis of field data 

(NASS–CDS 1995–2009) found that 92 

percent of near-side crashes for 

restrained children (0- to 12-years-old) 

involved a change in velocity of 19 mph 

or lower.58

NHTSA examined data from FMVSS 

No. 214 MDB compliance tests to 

identify kinematic characteristics of the 

vehicle test to replicate in the sled test 

environment, and proposed 

characteristics relating to the 

acceleration profile of the sliding seat 

(representing the struck vehicle 

acceleration), the door velocity at time 

of contact with the sliding seat (to 

represent the struck vehicle door 

velocity), and the impact angle of the 

door with the sliding seat (to replicate 

the longitudinal component of the 

direction of force). Comments were 

requested 59 on whether a relative door 

velocity profile (the velocity of the door 

relative to the sliding seat) should be 

specified to improve the reproducibility 

of the test procedure using different 

types of sled systems. 

NHTSA proposed to apply FMVSS 

No. 213a to CRSs manufactured and 

offered for sale for children up to 18.1 

kg (40 lb). The NPRM proposed that 

child restraint systems with integral 

internal harnesses (car seats or safety 

seats) would be attached to the side 

impact seat assembly (SISA) using the 

child restraint anchorage system on the 

SISA (including the top tether, if one 

were provided).60 Comments were 

requested on whether car seats should 

also be tested when attached by a Type 

2 belt and top tether. The NPRM 

proposed that child restraints that do 

not have connectors designed to attach 

to a child restraint anchorage system 

would be tested using a Type 2 belt 

(e.g., booster seats recommended for 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) 61). 

NHTSA proposed that child restraint 

systems recommended for children with 

weights in the 10 kg to 18.1 kg (22 lb 

to 40 lb) range would be tested on the 

SISA with the Q3s test dummy.62 Child 

restraints would have to meet injury 

criteria (expressed in terms of HIC15 63

and chest deflection) when tested with 

the Q3s dummy. These criteria allow a 

quantitative evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the CRS, and the ability 

of the CRS to prevent or attenuate head 

and chest impact with the intruding 

door. CRSs recommended for children 

with weights that include weights up to 

10 kg (22 lb) would be tested with the 

12-month-old CRABI dummy (49 CFR 

part 572, subpart R). Because the CRABI 

dummy is designed for frontal and not 

side impacts, the NPRM proposed that 

the CRABI would be used only to 

measure the containment capability of 

the child restraint (the ability of the 

restraint to prevent the dummy’s head 

from contacting the intruding door of 

the SISA). The dummy’s head and chest 

instrumentation would not be leveraged 

since the dummy was not designed to 

assess crash forces in side impacts. 

The NPRM also proposed requiring 

child restraints to meet structural 

integrity and other performance 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213. When 

a CRS is dynamically tested with the 

appropriate ATD, there should not be 

any complete separation of any loadbearing structural element 64 of the CRS 

or any partial separation exposing 

surfaces with sharp edges that may 

contact an occupant. These 

requirements would reduce the 

likelihood that a child using the CRS 

would be injured by the collapse or 

disintegration of the system, projectiles 

coming from a seat involved in a side 

crash or by contact with the interior of 

the passenger compartment or with 

components of the CRS. NHTSA notes 

that while some CRS structures have not 

been considered load-bearing structural 

elements in frontal testing (FMVSS No. 

213) by NHTSA, these same CRS 

structures may be considered loadbearing structural elements in side 

impact testing (FMVSS No. 213a). 

Injury from contacting protrusions, 

such as the pointed ends of screws 

mounted in padding, would be 

prevented in a similar manner as that 

specified for the frontal crash test in 

FMVSS No. 213. The height of such 

protrusions would be limited to not 

more than 0.375 inches above any 

immediately adjacent surface. Also, 

contactable surfaces (surfaces contacted 

by the head or torso of the ATD) would 

not be permitted to have an edge with 

a radius of less than 6.35 mm (0.25 

inches), even under padding. Padding 

will compress in an impact and the load 

imposed on the child would be 

concentrated and potentially injurious. 

The NPRM discussed NHTSA’s 

testing of CRS models representative of 

seats available then in the market. 

NHTSA had tested twelve forwardfacing and five rear-facing child 

restraints with the Q3s dummy. The Q3s 

measured HIC15 greater than 570 in 

seven of the twelve forward-facing CRSs 

tested. The Q3s measured chest 

deflection greater than 23 mm in three 

of the twelve forward-facing CRSs 

tested. The Q3s measured both HIC15 

greater than 570 and chest deflection 

greater than 23 mm in three of the tests 

of the forward-facing CRSs. For the five 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39245 

65The NPRM proposing to add the Q3s dummy 

specifications to 49 CFR part 572 received 

comments separately from the NPRM preceding this 

final rule. Those comments are fully addressed in 

the November 3, 2020 final rule (85 FR 69898). 

They are discussed here to the extent relevant to 

this final rule. 

66Consumer Union is the Policy and Action 

Division of Consumer Reports. 

67These were UMTRI and three individuals. 

68ECE R44—Restraining Devices for Child 

Occupants of Power Driven Vehicles (‘‘Child 

Restraint Systems’’). 

rear-facing CRSs tested with the Q3s, 

the results of the fleet tests showed that 

the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 

570 in three of the five rear-facing CRSs 

tested, and chest deflection greater than 

23 mm in two of the five tests. The Q3s 

measured both HIC15 greater than 570 

and chest deflection greater than 23 mm 

in one of the five rear-facing CRSs 

tested. NHTSA tested 12 rear-facing 

CRSs with the CRABI to estimate the 

performance of the fleet. Using head-todoor contact as the performance 

criterion in the fleet tests, the results 

showed that the CRABI had head 

contact only with one child restraint 

(one out of the twelve models tested). 

b. Summary of the Comments 

NHTSA received 29 comments on the 

proposal.65 Commenters included child 

restraint manufacturers (Dorel Juvenile 

Group, Graco Children’s Products, 

Britax Child Safety, Inc UppaBaby, 

Safeguard/IMMI), the Juvenile Products 

Manufacturers Association (JPMA); 

consumer advocates (Safe Ride News, 

Safe Kids Worldwide, Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety, Consumers 

Union 66); the National Transportation 

Safety Board; research bodies and 

testing organizations (Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI), MGA 

Research Corporation, ARCCA, Inc., the 

Transport Research Laboratory; a 

supplier of honeycomb (Plascore), and 

members of the general public. 

Overview of the Comments 

As summarized below, all but four 

commenters 67 strongly supported the 

proposed inclusion of a side impact test 

in FMVSS No. 213. Several commenters 

expressed views on the types of child 

restraints they believed should be 

subject to FMVSS No. 213a. Many 

commenters discussed technical aspects 

of the proposed test procedure, such as 

the repeatability and reproducibility of 

the dynamic test, the availability of and 

characteristics of the seat foam specified 

for the SISA, how the tested CRS should 

be positioned on and attached to the 

SISA, and how the Q3s should be 

positioned in the child restraint, 

Child restraint manufacturers: All 

child restraint manufacturers 

commenting on the NPRM supported 

the inclusion of a dynamic side impact 

test procedure in FMVSS No. 213, as 

did JPMA, their industry group. Some 

had questions about various issues and 

many responded to the questions 

NHTSA had asked in the preamble to 

the NPRM. Dorel supported adopting a 

test procedure that included an 

intruding door but believed that the Q3s 

dummy exhibited ‘‘artificial forward 

head movement before the crash 

impact’’ that places the dummy out of 

position in relation to the side wing. 

Dorel expressed concerns about the 

repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) 

of results from NHTSA’s test program, 

as did Graco, the latter providing 

feedback on results of test trials it 

conducted comparing the R&R of the 

proposed side impact test using data 

from several different test labs. Graco 

evaluated potential causes of variation 

and recommended ways to improve the 

sled design to reduce variation between 

the labs. 

Some CRS manufacturers suggested 

revisions to technical aspects of the 

proposal. Britax believed the United 

Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe Regulation No. 44 68 (ECE R.44) 

foam proposed for use on the SISA is 

not readily available and specifying it in 

FMVSS No. 213a may create 

considerable hardship from cost and 

availability perspectives. Britax 

supported the agency’s views in the 

NPRM about testing and labeling of beltpositioning booster seats. UPPAbaby 

recommended against using the Q3s 

dummy to test rear-facing infant seats, 

because, it stated, ‘‘the head of the Q3s 

exceeds the limit to which we 

recommend a child be positioned in our 

seat.’’ UPPAbaby supported using a lap/ 

shoulder belt to attach car seats to the 

SISA, in addition to a child restraint 

anchorage system. IMMI supported 

excluding harnesses from the proposed 

side impact requirements and suggested 

ways to expand the standard’s 

definition of a ‘‘harness.’’ JPMA 

reiterated Dorel’s comment about 

‘‘artificial forward head movement’’ of 

the Q3s before impact, reported 

instances in which the text in the 

preamble was inconsistent with 

proposed regulatory text, emphasized 

the importance of reproducibility of test 

results to the objectivity of a safety 

standard, and provided other 

information. 

Consumer advocates: Safe Ride News 

(SRN), Safe Kids Worldwide, Advocates 

for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates), 

and Consumers Union (CU) supported 

the proposed rule, while suggesting that 

NHTSA adopt further requirements. 

Several commenters weighed in with 

responses to the technical questions in 

the NPRM. Many concurred that the 

rule should only apply to CRSs 

recommended for children weighing up 

to 18.1 kg (40 lb) but encouraged 

NHTSA to develop an ATD 

(anthropomorphic test device) (test 

dummy) representative of older 

children. SRN, Safe Kids and CU 

suggested lead times less than 3 years. 

Advocates suggested NHTSA require 

various warnings on child restraints, 

such as a warning on CRSs 

recommended for children weighing 

more than 40 lb that ‘‘this CRS has not 

been tested in side impacts.’’ CU 

suggested additional performance 

criteria for structural integrity and 

supported testing CRSs when attached 

with Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belts. 

CU believed that the Q3s is too large to 

test rear-facing infant seats, and that 

NHTSA should consider a planar limit 

to reduce the potential for the dummy’s 

head to roll out of the CRS shell in some 

tests. 

Research and testing organizations: 

The Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety (IIHS) agreed with NHTSA’s 

reasons for not applying FMVSS No. 

213a to CRSs for children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). IIHS provided 

data from its belt fit program showing 

that children weighing more than 18.1 

kg (40 lb) seated in booster seats are 

likely tall enough to benefit from the 

vehicle side curtain air bag. IIHS and 

the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute 

(UMTRI) had concerns about possible 

dis-benefits from rear-facing restraints 

possibly becoming wider in response to 

meeting FMVSS No. 213a. They 

believed wider restraints could 

potentially indirectly increase injury 

risk for restrained children, by, for 

example, causing older siblings to 

graduate prematurely to a booster seat 

because wider car seats are harder to fit 

side-by-side. UMTRI asked whether 

costs to meet the proposed standard 

would be better spent on efforts to 

restrain children. The commenter stated 

that half of pediatric fatalities from 

motor vehicle crashes are to 

unrestrained or improperly restrained 

occupants, so rather than modestly 

improving the side impact protection for 

children, efforts should address 

improving the number of children using 

appropriate restraints, enhancing child 

restraint ease-of-use, and increasing 

educational efforts, such as on top tether 

use. ARCCA suggested that NHTSA use 

the Hybrid III 6-year-old and 10-year-old 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39246 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

69 Dr. Baer stated, ‘‘[C]urrent efforts to redesign 

seats to optimize protection in side impacts are 

misguided. I believe the primary focus should be on 

increasing the number of 1–3-year-olds who ride 

rear-facing as the data suggest that keeping our 

preschoolers rear-facing could have a much greater 

impact on reducing fatalities & injuries in restrained 

children than the proposed side impact standards 

will.’’ 

70Henary, B., Sherwood, C.P., Crandall, J.R., 

Kent, R.W., Vaca, F.E., Arbogast, K.B., Bull, M.J. 

(2007) ‘‘Car safety seats for children: rear facing for 

best protection.’’ Injury Prevention 13:398–402. 

(Note: as discussed below, this article was retracted 

in 2016.) 

71 85 FR 69388, supra. 

72See NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy 

Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013, 

March 2011, discussed in the January 28, 2014 

NPRM, supra, for this final rule (79 FR at 4572, col. 

3). 

73AIS ranks individual injuries by body region on 

a scale of 1 to 6: 1 = minor, 2 = moderate, 3 = 

serious, 4 = severe, 5 = critical, and 6 = maximum 

(untreatable). 

frontal crash dummies to assess head 

containment and structural integrity. 

NTSB: The National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) supported the 

NPRM, believing that the proposed tests 

encompass the majority of CRSs because 

the upper use limit for most small 

restraint systems extends to at least 40 

pounds and the lower use limit is at or 

below 40 pounds. Nonetheless, NTSB 

urged NHTSA to develop suitable largesized dummies. NTSB expressed 

concern about the kinematic effects of 

far-side impact crashes on larger 

children. NTSB also supported testing 

CRSs with a seat belt attachment, in 

addition to the child restraint anchorage 

system attachment. The commenter 

encouraged NHTSA to consider ease-ofuse improvements for top tethers, and 

use of a pure lateral acceleration pulse 

in the side impact test. 

Individuals: Approximately 7 

individuals commented on the NPRM. 

Most of the individuals supported the 

proposal, with three opposing. One of 

the opposing commenters argued that 

the injury rates for the under 1-year-old 

children are nearly 4 times lower than 

that for the 1- to 3-year-old children, so 

efforts would be better spent increasing 

the number of 1- to 3-year-old children 

who ride rear-facing than on adopting a 

side impact standard. The others 

believed that the estimated benefits of 

the proposal are low and do not support 

the additional costs to industry or to the 

consumer. 

VI. Response to the Comments (WideReaching Issues) 

NHTSA has carefully considered the 

comments in developing this final rule. 

This section discusses the agency’s 

decisions on matters of general 

importance. Following this section are 

discussions relating to specific topics, 

such as various technical aspects of the 

side impact test procedure, the test 

dummies, the standard’s performance 

criteria, and other aspects of FMVSS No. 

213a. 

a. Are efforts better spent elsewhere on 

child seat safety? 

Almost all of the commenters 

supported the inclusion of a side impact 

test in FMVSS No. 213, but a few 

expressed concerns about the 

rulemaking. Dr. Alisa Baer suggested 

NHTSA’s efforts, and those of the 

industry and/or the child passenger 

safety community, could be better spent 

on correcting misuse or nonuse of child 

restraints.69 Dr. Baer argued that Table 

9 of the NPRM showed ‘‘the injury rates 

for the under 1-year-olds (presumably 

the majority of whom are rear-facing) 

are nearly 4 times lower than for the 1– 

3 year-olds (presumably the majority of 

whom are forward-facing).’’ She stated 

that the benefits seem low and may not 

outweigh the costs of meeting the 

standard—costs, she said, that include 

not only material costs (such as foam) 

but also research and development and 

crash testing costs. The commenter said 

the time and money spent on ensuring 

CRSs comply with the standard could 

be better spent elsewhere, specifically, 

‘‘at decreasing the non-use rate, 

especially amongst minority and lowincome populations.’’ 

UMTRI and IIHS expressed concern 

with ‘‘possible unintended 

consequences of implementing this 

rulemaking.’’ UMTRI suggested that 

only forward-facing harnessed restraints 

be subject to the side impact standard, 

‘‘since children in rear-facing child 

restraints are already five times safer 

than those in [forward-facing] restraints 

in side impacts,’’ citing a 2007 study by 

Henary et al. to support its view.70 IIHS 

echoed this view, also citing Henary. 

The commenters above also expressed 

concern that adding larger, padded side 

structures to meet the side impact 

standard may increase the overall width 

of child restraints and result in children 

prematurely moved from rear-facing 

restraints to forward-facing restraints, 

from harnessed car seats to boosters, 

and from center seating positions to 

outboard positions. 

Agency Response 

Increasing overall CRS use, tether use, 

and use of rear-facing restraints by 

children above age 1 are very important 

goals, as each of those measures can 

increase the number of child lives saved 

and injuries avoided in crashes. NHTSA 

is actively involved in increasing the 

use of CRSs and the correct use of 

restraint systems. These efforts include 

developing and distributing training 

videos, producing public safety 

announcements and various campaigns 

directed to caregivers of children (in 

English and Spanish), leveraging all 

communication resources (such as 

social media and the NHTSA website) to 

provide information to parents and 

other caregivers, and expanding and 

supporting the child passenger safety 

technician (CPST) curriculum used to 

train and certify CRS fitting station 

technicians. In addition, NHTSA’s 

November 2, 2020 NPRM 71 takes steps 

forward with proposed changes to 

labeling requirements that are 

anticipated to result in more children 

remaining rear-facing longer, and 

remaining in child safety seats longer 

before transitioning to a booster. 

To be clear, however, this final rule 

focuses on improving the protection 

provided by child restraints in side 

impacts and offers expanded protection 

of children in a critically important 

crash mode—a protection supplemental 

to the frontal crash protection the 

restraints currently provide. Front and 

side crashes account for most child 

occupant fatalities. MAP–21 requires 

NHTSA to issue a final rule to amend 

FMVSS No. 213 to improve the 

protection of children seated in child 

restraints in side impacts, but enhanced 

side impact protection for children has 

been a priority for NHTSA before MAP– 

21.72 FMVSS No. 213a establishes a 

level of protection against unreasonable 

safety risks in side impacts that every 

safety seat sold in this country will have 

to provide and improves the protection 

afforded by the restraints above that 

currently required by FMVSS No. 213. 

The efforts to improve CRS use are 

complementary to and not inconsistent 

with improvements to side crash safety, 

and will continue. Improved 

performance in side crashes will not be 

achieved by improving CRS use alone, 

however. Establishing FMVSS No. 213a 

improves the performance of child 

restraints for the benefit of all children 

using the restraints. 

NHTSA disagrees with the 

commenters that FMVSS No. 213a 

should not apply to rear-facing child 

restraints. Dr. Baer may have 

misunderstood Table 9 in the NPRM. 

Table 9 in the NPRM does not present 

injury rate and instead presents average 

annual estimates of Abbreviated Injury 

Scale (AIS) 2+ injuries.73 Since the 

population of children riding in light 

vehicles is unknown, it is not possible 

to estimate injury rates. The lower 

annual number of injuries to children 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39247 

74Supra. 

75McMurry, T.L., Arbogast, K.B., Sherwood, C.P., 

Vaca, F., Bull, M., Crandall, J.R., Kent, R.W. ‘‘Rear 

facing versus forward-facing child restraints: an 

updated assessment,’’ 2017, Injury Prevention. 

76https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ 

safety-prevention/on-the-go/Pages/Car-Safety-SeatsInformation-for-Families.aspx. 77https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seatsand-booster-seats. 78Rear-facing car seat use among children 1- to 

3-years-old increased significantly from 9.4 percent 

in 2015 to 13.7 percent in 2017. Li, H.R., & Pickrell, 

T. (2018, September). The 2017 National Survey of 

the Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT HS 812 

617). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

79Comment dated July 1, 2014. There were two 

comments from ARCCA. 

80ARCCA did not provide details of the ISO test 

protocol. ARCCA may be referring to the test details 

provided in the report, ISO TR 14646:2007, ‘‘Road 

vehicles—Side impact testing of child restraint 

systems—Review of background data and test 

methods, and conclusions from the ISO work as of 

November 2005.’’ 

under 1 year of age could be related to 

fewer children of this age group 

involved in crashes in comparison to 1- 

to 3-year-old children. Applying FMVSS 

No. 213a to both front-facing and rearfacing child restraints ensures all rearfacing child restraints will provide a 

level of performance determined 

necessary to reduce an unreasonable 

risk of death or injury in side impacts 

to restrained occupants. 

UMTRI and IIHS argue that rearfacing CRSs are five times safer than 

forward-facing CRSs, based on a 2007 

study by Henary et al.74 NHTSA notes 

that the Henary study was called into 

question in 2016, and after further 

analysis, the article was retracted by the 

journal Injury Prevention, because the 

survey weights in the original analysis 

were determined to be improperly 

handled. In 2017, a revised analysis of 

the 1988–2003 data, along with an 

extended analysis of the data through 

2015, was published by a subset of the 

original authorship group.75 Their 

findings reveal that, although children 0 

to 23 months still had lower rates of 

injury while rear-facing compared with 

forward-facing, the sample size was too 

small to achieve statistical significance. 

Regardless of the withdrawn Henary 

study, NHTSA does not find the 

commenters’ arguments persuasive. 

MAP–21 limits our discretion regarding 

rear-facing child restraints, but even in 

the absence of the statutory mandate, 

NHTSA finds a crucial need to apply 

FMVSS No. 213a to rear-facing CRSs. 

Current guidance from the American 

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and from 

NHTSA instruct parents that children 

should ride rear-facing longer, and 

increasing numbers of child restraints 

are designed to position children rearfacing longer. AAP recommends: ‘‘All 

infants and toddlers should ride in a 

rear-facing seat until they reach the 

highest weight or height allowed by 

their car safety seat manufacturer. Most 

convertible seats have limits that will 

allow children to ride rear facing for 2 

years or more.’’ 76 NHTSA recommends 

for children 1- to 3-years-old: ‘‘Keep 

your child rear-facing as long as 

possible. It’s the best way to keep him 

or her safe. Your child should remain in 

a rear-facing car seat until he or she 

reaches the top height or weight limit 

allowed by your car seat’s 

manufacturer.’’ 77 Because of these 

recommendations and the advances in 

child seat designs, children are 

positioned rear-facing longer.78 As most 

child occupant fatalities occur in front 

and side crashes, NHTSA believes it is 

critical that child restraints meet not 

only the Federal standard for frontal 

protection (FMVSS No. 213), but also a 

Federal standard for side impact 

protection (FMVSS No. 213a). Issuing 

FMVSS No. 213a guarantees the safety 

seats are tested and certified to a robust 

side impact standard when used rearfacing, and that children are provided at 

least a minimum level of protection 

against unreasonable risk of death or 

injury in side crashes. 

b. Will child restraints become 

excessively large and heavy? 

Dr. Baer, UMTRI and IIHS raised 

concerns that child restraints would get 

wider because of meeting FMVSS No. 

213a. Dr. Baer commented that the side 

impact rule is ‘‘virtually ensuring that 

car seats are only going to get wider and 

bulkier at the head area.’’ The 

commenter believed that the increased 

bulk would result in parents not able to 

fit car seats side-by-side in rear seats, 

and so the oldest child will be ‘‘put into 

a backless booster, as this is typically 

the narrowest, and least expensive, 

restraint available.’’ UMTRI expressed 

concern that adding larger, padded side 

structures ‘‘has potential to increase the 

overall width of child restraints,’’ which 

could result in children moved from 

center seating positions to outboard 

positions. IIHS echoed this concern, and 

stated ‘‘even moderate increases in size 

may result in fewer seats that fit in the 

rear seats of smaller vehicles.’’ 

Conversely, ARCCA 79 responded to 

the comments to the NPRM about the 

potential increase in the size and weight 

of child restraints. ARCCA shared 

information gained from car seats tested 

pursuant to a side impact test found in 

European New Car Assessment Program 

(Euro-NCAP) consumer education 

program. ARCCA stated that Euro-NCAP 

test results are provided to the public to 

aid purchasers in the selection of CRSs, 

and that as a result of these test 

programs, most suppliers of European 

child seat manufacturers strive to score 

well in those tests. 

ARCCA believed that FMVSS No. 

213a will have minimal effect on CRS 

cost, weight, and width. The commenter 

supported its view with an example of 

an infant-only CRS sold in Europe and 

the U.S. The restraint’s European 

version differs from the U.S. version by 

way of side wings with a wing depth of 

41⁄2 inches, compared to the U.S. 

version that has a wing depth of only 

21⁄2 inches. ARCCA stated that when 

tested with a 12-month-old CRABI 

infant dummy in accordance with the 

proposed ISO side impact test 

protocol,80 the U.S. version failed to 

contain the head. The head hit the 

simulated intruding door, resulting in 

HIC values ranging from 2,577 to 4,783. 

In contrast, the commenter stated, the 

European version, with its deeper side 

wings, contained the head and 

prevented contact with the simulated 

intruding door, resulting in a HIC value 

of 827 (a 68 to 83 percent reduction in 

the HIC value). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

81Louden, A., & Wietholter, K. (2022, March). 

FMVSS No. 213 side impact test evaluation and 

revision (Report No. DOT HS 812 791). Washington, 

DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (hereinafter Louden & Wietholter 

(2022)). Available in the docket of this final rule. 

ARCCA stated that the U.S. and 

European versions of this infant seat 

were manufactured using the same 

plastic shell. The side wings of the 

European version were deepened 

simply by extending the expanded 

polystyrene (EPS) lining beyond the 

plastic shell. While the wings were 

deepened in the European version, the 

width of the infant seat was the same as 

the U.S. version. ARCCA stated that the 

weight increase due to the deepening of 

side wings was negligible 

(approximately one-eighth of a pound 

(1⁄8 lb)) and the increased cost for the 

extended EPS was minimal, less than 

one dollar. ARCCA believed the 

proposed rulemaking will significantly 

improve child occupant crash 

protection in side impacts and rollovers, 

and have minimal effect on CSS cost, 

weight, and width. 

Agency Response 

Data indicate that child restraints will 

not become excessively large or heavy 

due to FMVSS No. 213a, and rear-facing 

CRSs should not be excluded from the 

side impact protection requirements 

based on a concern about larger and 

wider CRS designs. As IIHS points out, 

only one rear-facing seat failed to 

contain the 12-month-old CRABI’s head 

in NHTSA’s test program described in 

the NPRM, which indicates that many 

rear-facing seats may not need to be 

redesigned in any way to meet FMVSS 

No. 213a. 

Commenters Dr. Baer, UMTRI and 

IIHS speculated about bulkier child 

restraints and the consequences that the 

bulkiness could cause, but provided no 

data or other information supporting 

their views. In contrast, ARCCA 

provided information showing that the 

width and weight of an infant carrier 

sold in Europe (designed to provide side 

impact protection) were almost identical 

to the U.S. version of the model. 

ARCCA’s information indicates side 

impact protection can be provided by 

car seats without having to increase 

width or weight. 

After reviewing the comments, 

NHTSA followed up with further 

evaluation of whether manufacturers 

must widen forward-facing restraints to 

meet the side impact protection 

requirements. The agency evaluated two 

pairs of CRS models.81 For each pair, 

one of the child restraints was 

advertised as providing more side 

impact protection than its related twin. 

NHTSA measured the width of each 

CRS at the locations where a child’s 

head, abdomen and hips would be when 

restrained in the CRS. NHTSA found 

that, for each CRS advertised as having 

enhanced side impact protection 

features over its twin, each was wider in 

the upper area of the CRS near the head 

position. 

NHTSA then conducted sled tests of 

the CRSs using the Q3s dummy with the 

CRS in the forward-facing mode. For 

each CRS pair, the agency observed that 

the HIC15 value measured by the Q3s 

dummy was greater for the wider CRS 

(see Table 10). The HIC15 

measurements of the Q3s were greater 

for both the Britax Advocate and Graco 

Nautilus Safety Surround, which are 

wider than their corresponding models, 

the Britax Boulevard and Graco Nautilus 

65, respectively. This testing 

demonstrated that child restraints 

cannot simply be widened to meet the 

FMVSS No. 213a side impact test; 

simply widening the restraint may, in 

fact, degrade performance. 

Manufacturers will likely use different 

engineering solutions (e.g., designing in 

energy-absorbing components) to 

improve performance rather than just 

widen the restraint. A well-engineered 

restraint could meet the requirements of 

this final rule without becoming wider. 

Concerns about rear-facing CRSs 

‘‘bulking-up’’ to meet the side impact 

protection requirements also appear 

unwarranted. As will be discussed in a 

section below, test data from NHTSA’s 

tests developing this final rule indicate 

that not all side wings and padding 

protect the same, and in some cases, 

‘‘more’’ of a countermeasure (padding, 

structure) was not necessarily ‘‘better.’’ 

Width, wings, padding, padding-like 

features, and other countermeasures 

employed to provide protection in side 

impacts must be engineered to attain the 

performance specified by FMVSS No. 

213a. Adding bulk and weight to a child 

restraint is not necessary and can be 

counterproductive. 

TABLE 10—UPPER WIDTH AND HIC15 VALUES IN TESTS WITH THE Q3S DUMMY IN BRITAX BOULEVARD AND BRITAX

ADVOCATE CRS MODELS IN FORWARD-FACING CONFIGURATION

Database 

test No. CRS HIC15 Advertised side protection Upper width 

CRS Pair 1: 

10105 ................................. Britax Boulevard ....................... 522 2 Layers of Side Impact Protection (energy-absorbing shell 

and foam-lined head rest).

460 

10106 ................................. Britax Advocate ........................ 665 3 Layers of Side Impact Protection (energy absorbing shell, 

foam-lined headrest and external cushions).

465 

CRS Pair 2: 

10108 ................................. Graco Nautilus 65 .................... 609 EPS Energy Absorbing Foam and Reinforced Steel .................. 455 

10109 ................................. Graco Nautilus Safety Surround.838 EPS Energy Absorbing Foam, Reinforced Steel and Safety 

Surround Technology (safety surround means that the head 

rest has a thicker foam).

470 

NHTSA also believes there is a 

technical incentive in FMVSS No. 213a 

that encourages designs toward 

narrower CRSs. Under this final rule, 

the impact velocity between the door 

and the CRS will be lower for narrow 

CRSs compared to wider CRSs. 

Narrower CRSs are at a greater distance 

from the edge of the sliding seat and so 

the door will impact the CRS at a later 

time after first impacting the sliding 

seat. This later impact will result in a 

lower relative velocity of the sliding seat 

with respect to the door at the time of 

impact with the CRS. 

NHTSA studied this aspect of the test 

procedure in following up on the 

commenters’ concern about the widths 

of CRSs. NHTSA analyzed the relative 

velocity at impact time between the 

door and the CRS for a wide CRS (Safety 

1st Advanced Air+, 520 mm maximum 

width) and narrow CRS (Chicco Next 

Fit, 460 mm maximum width). As 

shown in Figure 1 below, the wider CRS 

is impacted by the door at a relative 

velocity of 29.19 km/h while the narrow 

one is impacted at 26.59 km/h. Both 

HIC15 and chest deflection were lower 

in the test of the narrow CRS (Chicco 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39249 

82The Evenflo Triumph was produced in 2009 

which ensured this model had not been modified 

to improve side impact in response to the 2014 

NPRM. The agency also tested a more recently 

produced model which had very similar 

performance. 

Next Fit) than the wide CRS (Safety 1st 

Advance SE Air+). These CRSs are 

designed differently, so their 

countermeasures could have affected 

the HIC15 and chest deflection values 

measured by the dummy in the tests. 

Yet these results suggest that the 

FMVSS No. 213 side impact test will 

not in and of itself lead to wider CRSs. 

In sum, based on NHTSA’s testing of 

various types of CRSs in the side impact 

test protocol, NHTSA believes that CRSs 

do not have to be wider or bulkier to 

meet the side impact performance 

requirements. In fact, our evaluations 

showed that some narrower CRSs 

performed better than wider CRSs. 

c. More Bulk Is Not Necessarily 

Advantageous; the 2017 Test Program 

In 2017, NHTSA tested child restraint 

systems on the side impact seat 

assembly (SISA) as configured to the 

specifications of this final rule. There 

were two parts to this program. The first 

part of the testing was conducted to 

compare results of tests on the final 

SISA configuration with test results 

from 2012 using the proposed SISA. 

Three forward-facing CRS models 

(Evenflo Triumph,82 Evenflo Titan and 

Evenflo Tribute) and three rear-facing 

CRS models (Evenflo Tribute, Safety 1st 

Alpha Omega and Graco My Ride 65) 

were tested using the Q3s dummy on 

the final SISA to compare to the results 

from corresponding sled tests conducted 

on the proposed SISA. Paired 

comparison analyses (see Table 11) 

show that HIC15 and chest deflection 

results on the proposed and final SISA 

were not significantly different (p≤0.05). 

These data indicate that changes to the 

SISA between the NPRM and final rule 

did not affect test results from tests of 

the CRSs. 

TABLE 11—PAIRED COMPARISON T-TEST RESULTS OF TESTS CONDUCTED USING THE FINAL SISA CONFIGURATION AND

THE PROPOSED SISA 

Dummy, configuration and restraint 

type 

Final rule SISA configuration NPRM SISA configuration 

Test No. CRS HIC15 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

Test No. CRS HIC15 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

Q3s in Forward Facing (FF) Convertible Installed with CRAS.10274 Evenflo Triumph (2009) 498.8 11.4 7561 Evenflo Triumph Advantage DLX.463.8 14.6 

8252 Evenflo Triumph Advantage DLX.445.8 16.1 

8254 Evenflo Triumph Advantage DLX.468.7 13.5 

10276 Evenflo Titan ................. 1029.3 28.3 7557 Evenflo Titan ................. 846.5 20.6 

10101 Evenflo Tribute .............. 760.0 20.9 7547 Evenflo Tribute .............. 788.0 20.2 

T.Test ............................ 0.192 0.897 ................ ....................................... ................ ................

Q3s in Rear Facing (RF) Convertible 

Installed with lower anchors only 

(LA only).

10282 Evenflo Tribute .............. 611.5 23.4 7554 Evenflo Tribute .............. 763.0 22.4 

10283 Safety 1st Alpha Omega 396.4 26.0 7553 Safety 1st Alpha Omega 407.0 25.6 

10284 Graco My Ride 65 ......... 778.3 22.3 8260 Graco My Ride 65 ......... 751.0 25.0 

8264 Graco My Ride 65 ......... 681.0 31.0 

T.Test ............................ 0.869 0.341 ................ ....................................... ................ ................

The second part of the testing was to 

assess the performance of more recently 

produced child restraint systems to the 

requirements of then-pending FMVSS 

No. 213a. NHTSA conducted 18 tests of 

17 CRS models on the final SISA 

configuration. The 17 models 

represented 9 different types of child 

restraints, including infant, convertible 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.004</GPH>
39250 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

83Louden & Wietholter (2022). Available in the 

docket of this final rule. 

and combination CRSs. NHTSA selected 

CRSs that had a variety of self-described 

(advertised) side impact protection 

features. 

The data from the 2017 test program 

indicated that child restraint system 

designs had changed since the 

publication of the NPRM in 2014. Of the 

17 models tested, one (1) model had no 

side impact protection advertised, seven 

(7) models advertised that the product 

was side impact-tested or had side 

impact protection, and nine (9) models 

self-described the side impact 

technology used. Among the selected 

CRSs were 2 pairs of CRS models where 

one of the CRS had ‘‘incremental’’ 

improved side impact protection, based 

on their product description, compared 

to the other CRS. The Graco Nautilus 

and the Graco Nautilus Safety Surround 

(discussed above this preamble) were 

very similar models but the latter had a 

thicker head rest structure that was 

advertised as providing extra protection. 

The Britax Boulevard and Britax 

Advocate (also discussed above) were 

also CRSs that appeared to be similar, 

but the Britax Boulevard only had two 

levels of side impact protection while 

the Advocate had three levels of 

protection (according to the 

advertising). 

NHTSA tested the child restraints 

with the Q3s 3-year-old child dummy 

and the CRABI–12-month-old dummy. 

Forward-facing CRSs were installed 

using the lower anchors of the child 

restraint anchorage system required by 

FMVSS No. 225 and the tether 

anchorage, and rear-facing CRSs were 

installed using the lower anchorages 

only. Tables 12 and 13 provide a test 

matrix of the CRS name, orientation, 

installation method, dummy used and 

recorded injury measures. 

TABLE 12—TEST MATRIX AND SUMMARY RESULTS OF TESTS WITH THE Q3S ATD USING THE FINAL SISA 

CONFIGURATION

Database No. CRS Orientation Installation 

HIC15 

[g] 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

IARV=570 IARV=23 

10100 ................... Chicco NextFit ............................... FF Convertible .............................. CRAS ............. 582.0 18.7 

10101 ................... Evenflo Tribute .............................. FF Convertible .............................. CRAS ............. 760.3 20.8 

10102 ................... Cosco Scenera Next ..................... FF Convertible .............................. CRAS ............. 979.8 26.8 

10103 ................... Maxi-Cosi Pria 70 ......................... FF Convertible .............................. CRAS ............. 512.9 17.6 

10104 ................... Evenflo Chase ............................... FF Combination ............................ CRAS ............. 937.5 24.3 

10105 ................... Britax Boulevard ............................ FF Convertible .............................. CRAS ............. 521.7 * 7.08 

10106 ................... Britax Advocate ............................. FF Combination ............................ CRAS ............. 665.3 18.3 

10107 ................... Safety 1st Advance SE Air+ ......... FF Convertible .............................. CRAS ............. 616.3 27.7 

10108 ................... Graco Nautilus 65 ......................... FF Combination ............................ CRAS ............. 609.0 13.6 

10109 ................... Graco Nautilus Safety Surround ... FF Combination ............................ CRAS ............. 838.5 17.9 

10115 ................... Cosco Scenera Next ..................... RF Convertible .............................. LA Only .......... 677.7 26.2 

10116 ................... Graco Size4Me 65 ........................ RF Convertible .............................. LA Only .......... 778.5 23.5 

10118 ................... Evenflo Triumph ............................ RF Convertible .............................. LA Only .......... 487.8 12.2 

10117 ................... Baby Trend PROtect ..................... RF Convertible .............................. LA Only .......... 963.7 25.8 

Note: CRAS means the full child restraint anchorage system, LA Only means lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system, RF 

means rear-facing, and FF means forward-facing. 

*Possible data anomaly. 

Results shown in Table 12 show that 

among forward-facing CRSs tested with 

the Q3s dummy, 20 percent (2/10) had 

HIC15 values less than or equal to the 

IARV of 570, and 70 percent (7/10) had 

chest deflection less than or equal to the 

IARV of 23 mm. Among rear-facing 

CRSs tested with the Q3s dummy, 25 

percent (1⁄4) had HIC15 values less than 

or equal to the IARV of 570 and 25 

percent (1⁄4) had chest deflection values 

less than or equal to the IARV of 23 mm. 

TABLE 13—TEST MATRIX AND SUMMARY RESULTS OF TESTS WITH THE CRABI 12-MONTH-OLD ATD USING THE FINAL

SISA CONFIGURATION

TRC test No. CRS Orientation Installation Contact 

10110 ................... Britax B-Safe 35 .......................................................................... RF Infant .............. LA Only ................ No. 

10112 ................... Cybex Aton 2 using telescopic side arm ..................................... RF Infant .............. LA Only ................ No. 

10111 ................... Evenflo Embrace LX .................................................................... RF Infant .............. LA Only ................ No. 

10114 ................... Maxi-Cosi Mico AP ...................................................................... RF Infant .............. LA Only ................ No. 

Note: LA Only means lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system and RF means rear-facing. 

As shown in Table 13, rear-facing CRS 

(infant carriers) tested with the 12- 

month-old CRABI dummy showed that 

100 percent (4/4) met the containment 

criteria. 

General Observations 

The 2017 test results 83 with the Q3s 

dummy show fewer child restraints able 

to conform to the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 213a, 

compared to test results from earlier 

tests. In the 2014 tests reported in the 

NPRM, among 12 CRS models in the 

forward-facing mode tested with the 

Q3s dummy, 41 percent (5/12) had 

HIC15 values passing the IARV and 75 

percent (9/12) had chest deflection 

passing the IARV. Additionally, 40 

percent (2/5) of rear-facing CRSs tested 

with the Q3s dummy had HIC15 and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39251 

84Also known as the Comfort Sport. 85Table 10 of this final rule measured the width 

of the CRSs with and without additional padding 

and documented the description of the different 

side impact protection designs. Some CRSs were 

simply visually inspected where they may have 

appeared to have thicker structures. 

chest deflection values passing their 

respective IARVs. Among rear-facing 

CRSs (infant carriers) tested with the 12- 

month-old CRABI dummy, 91 percent 

met the containment criteria in the tests. 

It should be noted that for the fleet 

tests presented in the NPRM, NHTSA 

selected the CRS models to obtain a 

representation of the market at the time, 

with a variety of CRS manufacturers and 

models. For the 2017 testing done with 

the final SISA configuration, NHTSA 

selected CRSs that had a variety of side 

impact protection features, but the CRSs 

were not necessarily a representation of 

the market. The goal of the second part 

of the tests using the final SISA 

configuration presented in Tables 12 

and 13 was to learn how the CRSs with 

advertised improved side impact 

protection performed in the side impact 

test. 

To select the CRSs that would be 

tested for the final rule evaluations, 

NHTSA examined CRS designs tested in 

2011–2012 with designs updated in 

2016–2017. The comparisons of designs 

were only done visually, i.e., NHTSA 

did not undertake tear-down analyses of 

the underlying structure designs. 

In the test, the agency observed that 

some of the designs that were not 

updated, or that were minimally 

updated, such as the Graco Classic Ride 

50,84 Evenflo Tribute, and Evenflo 

Chase, maintained the same 

performance as in 2012 (see Table 5). In 

contrast, the performance measures 

(HIC15, chest deflection, head contact) 

in other models that had been 

redesigned since the NPRM were 

markedly different than in their 

respective older versions. For example, 

the redesigned Britax Advocate had 

higher HIC15 measures, and the Safety 

1st Advance SE Air+ and Cosco Scenera 

had higher chest deflections (see Table 

14) than their respective prior versions. 

The redesigned Britax Advocate has a 

different shell, a side structure with 

different shape and more coverage (but 

has a similar adjustable head restraint as 

the older version). The redesigned and 

prior versions of the Safety 1st and 

Cosco models had differences in the 

side structures of the CRS at the head 

and chest areas, and the newer versions 

appeared to be thicker in the head and 

torso/pelvis area. The Graco Nautilus 65 

2017 showed improved chest 

deflections compared to the Graco 

Nautilus 2012, while the Graco Nautilus 

Safety Surround 2017 had increased 

HIC15 compared to the Graco Nautilus 

2012. 

TABLE 14—COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF FORWARD-FACING AND REAR-FACING CRS MODELS IN TESTS WITH

THE PROPOSED AND FINAL SISA CONFIGURATIONS

Database No. SISA configuration CRS model HIC15 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

Orientation 

7544 ..................... NPRM .................. Evenflo Chase .................................................. 766 18.7 Forward Facing. 

8253 ..................... NPRM .................. 987 20.1 

8255 ..................... NPRM .................. 853 25.0 

8257 ..................... NPRM .................. 784 25.4 

10104 ................... Final ..................... 937 24.3 

7547 ..................... NPRM .................. Evenflo Tribute ................................................. 788 20.2 Forward Facing. 

10101 ................... Final ..................... 760 20.9 

8276 ..................... NPRM .................. Graco Classic Ride 50/Graco Comfort Sport .. 742 19.3 Forward Facing. 

8278 ..................... NPRM .................. 679 21.5 

8280 ..................... NPRM .................. 675 19.6 

10020 ................... Final ..................... 672 21.6 

10021 ................... Final ..................... 716 20.6 

10022 ................... Final ..................... 691 20.1 

7545 ..................... NPRM .................. Britax Advocate ................................................ 365 19.5 Forward Facing. 

10106 ................... Final ..................... 665 18.3 

7546 ..................... NPRM .................. Safety 1st Air Protect/Advance SE Air+ .......... 624 16.5 Forward Facing. 

10107 ................... Final ..................... 616 27.7 

8283 ..................... NPRM .................. Cosco Scenera/Scenera Next ......................... 685 19.2 Rear Facing. 

8285 ..................... NPRM .................. 714 20.2 

8287 ..................... NPRM .................. 660 23.4 

10115 ................... Final ..................... 678 26.2 

8277 ..................... NPRM .................. Graco Nautilus/Nautilus 65/Nautilus Safety 

Surround.

654 17.7 Forward Facing. 

8279 ..................... NPRM .................. 597 19.5 

8281 ..................... NPRM .................. 625 17.0 

10108 ................... Final ..................... 609 13.6 

10109 ................... Final ..................... 839 17.9 

7562 ..................... NPRM .................. Maxi Cosi Priori/Maxi Cosi Pria 70 .................. 388 21.1 Forward Facing. 

10103 ................... Final ..................... 512 17.6 

Note: Bold = Increased Value, Italic = Decreased Value. 

Based on this testing (Table 12 and 

Table 14) NHTSA believes that some of 

the more recently tested CRS designs 

may have added unnecessary bulk. 

Injury values are higher in some designs 

that had added mass (thickness) 85 than 

those without it. The 2017 testing 

indicates that placement of coverage, 

materials, internal structures, shape of 

the coverage and other factors must be 

purposefully engineered, as more is not 

necessarily better. 

NHTSA had thought in the 2014 

NPRM that CRSs with greater side 

coverage performed better than CRSs 

with a less side coverage. Designs 

meeting FMVSS No. 213a’s performance 

requirements are feasible, but the data 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39252 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

86 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 87This group encompasses children ages birth to 

about 4 years. 88Note that, in survey data, a child who is 1 day 

shy of his or her 4th birthday is still considered a 

3-year-old. Therefore, survey data representing 1- 

to-3-year-old children include 3-year-old children 

who are nearly 4-years-old. Also, the 40 lb weight 

limit represents the weight of a 75th percentile 4- 

year-old child and an average 5-year-old child. 89Enriquez, J. (2021, May). The 2019 National 

Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT 

HS 813 033). National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. NSUBS is a probability-based 

nationwide child restraint use survey conducted by 

NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and 

Analysis (NCSA). 

90Children between 4- and 12-years-old have 

lower child restraint use (4- to 7-year-olds = 55 

percent and 8- to 12-year-olds = 6 percent). Data 

show that 43 percent of 4- to 7-year-old and 78 

percent of 8- to 12-year-old children use seat belts. 

91McCray, L., Scarboro, M., Brewer, J. ‘‘Injuries 

to children one to three years old in side impact 

crashes,’’ 20th International Conference on the 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2007. Paper Number 

07–0186. 

92The beltline of a vehicle is a term used in 

vehicle design and styling, referring to the 

nominally horizontal line below the side glazing of 

a vehicle, which separates the glazing area from the 

lower body. Passenger vehicles are required to 

provide head protection in side impacts and 

ejection mitigation in rollovers, pursuant to FMVSS 

No. 214 and FMVSS No. 226, ‘‘Ejection mitigation,’’ 

respectively. The countermeasure provided to meet 

FMVSS No. 226 in passenger vehicles, a side 

curtain air bag, must meet performance 

requirements that, in effect, will necessitate 

coverage of the side windows to the beltline of the 

vehicle. 

93NHTSA proposed a 500 mm (19.6 in) beltline 

height for the SISA. See, 79 FR at 4587–4588. 

from the 2017 program show there are 

optimal ways to add structure and 

padding, and ways that added bulk 

could have an adverse effect. The test 

procedure adopted by this final rule will 

provide a means for CRS developers to 

assess, in a meaningful way, the 

performance of their designs and 

optimize the protection of children in 

side impacts. 

d. The 40-lb Limit for Coverage of the 

Standard 

Consistent with the Safety Act and 

NHTSA’s guiding principles for this 

rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to apply 

the side impact test requirements to 

CRSs designed to seat children in a 

weight range from birth to 18.1 kg (0 to 

40 lb). The Safety Act requires each 

FMVSS to be appropriate for the 

particular type of motor vehicle 

equipment for which it is prescribed.86

NHTSA determined the side protection 

standard would be appropriate for child 

restraints for children in the 0 to 18.1 

kg (40 lb) group 87 because these 

children have a high rate of child 

restraint use (less than 1-year-old = 97.5 

percent and 1- to 3-years-old 88 = 94.3 

percent according to the 2019 National 

Survey of the Use of Booster Seats 

(NSUBS) 89). Their high use rate 

provides a good opportunity for 

reducing injuries and fatalities through 

a side impact regulation.90

NHTSA also determined that focusing 

on the 0 to 18.1 kg (40 lb) (0- to 4-yearsold) age group is appropriate because 

countermeasures are practicable for this 

age group. Real-world data show that 

head injuries are the most common 

injuries in a side impact for 0- to 4-yearold children. According to McCray,91

head injuries in children 1- to 3-yearsold are slightly higher than overall for 

children 0 to 12 year of age. Using 

padding and/or larger side wings to 

keep the child’s head contained and 

protected enables forward- and rearfacing CRSs to meet the requirements of 

this final rule without adding any 

additional structures to the safety seats. 

The Q3s dummy is also representative 

of children in the upper range of this 

age group and can be used to assess the 

performance of child safety seat 

countermeasures in protecting against 

unreasonable head impact. 

NHTSA also explained in the NPRM 

that the FMVSS No. 213a side impact 

test replicates a near-side crash as 

experienced by a child under 18.1 kg 

(40 lb) in a safety seat. The agency’s test 

results indicate that an important factor 

in the near-side impact environment is 

the position of the child’s head with 

respect to the ‘‘beltline’’ (also referred to 

as the windowsill) 92 of the vehicle door. 

When the child’s head is below the 

beltline—as likely with children 

weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) (0- to 4- 

year-old) in child restraints—protection 

of the child is critically dependent on 

the child safety seat, as negligible 

benefit is expected to be attained from 

the vehicle’s side curtain air bags. Older 

children restrained in CRSs typically sit 

high enough so that the child’s head is 

above the beltline and within the area 

covered by the side curtain air bag. 

Finally, NHTSA emphasized that, due 

to the absence of an array of side impact 

child test dummies, focusing this 

rulemaking on CRSs designed for 

children in a weight range that includes 

weights up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) properly 

accords with 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)’s 

provision that each FMVSS be 

appropriate for the types of motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed. NHTSA determined that the 

Q3s dummy (weighing 14.5 kg (32 lb)) 

is representative of young children 

weighing under 18.1 kg (40 lb) and is 

appropriate as a test device for CRSs 

recommended for children weighing up 

to 18.1 kg (40 lb). The dummy would 

not be a suitable dummy to test the 

performance of CRSs in protecting 

children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 

lb), as it is not representative of children 

for whom the CRS is sold. 

Comments Received 

NHTSA received diverse comments 

on the 40-lb applicability threshold. 

Commenters generally agreed that the 

absence of a dummy larger than the Q3s 

limited the agency’s applying the side 

impact standard to child restraints for 

children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 

lb), but several commenters urged 

NHTSA to develop new test dummies or 

use existing ones, such as frontal test 

dummies. No commenter objected to 

NHTSA’s requiring manufacturers of 

booster seats to limit use of boosters to 

children weighing at least 18.1 kg (40 

lb); six commenters expressly supported 

the provision (IIHS, Dorel, Britax, JPMA, 

UMTRI and Safekids). Advocates 

requested NHTSA provide more support 

for its determination that children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) may 

benefit from side curtain air bags. 

IIHS concurred with NHTSA’s 

proposed threshold applying FMVSS 

No. 213a to CRSs for children weighing 

less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) for the reasons 

given in the NPRM. IIHS provided data 

to support the view that children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) in 

booster seats are seated high enough to 

take advantage of the vehicle’s side 

curtain air bags. The commenter 

explained that data it obtained during 

its tests of booster seat belt fit indicate 

that the center of gravity (CG) of a 

typical 6-year-old child’s head is 600– 

650 millimeters (mm) above the vehicle 

seat when seated in a booster, which is 

above the windowsill (beltline) of 500 

mm discussed in the NPRM.93 IIHS 

found that on average, the seated height 

of the 6-year-old dummy in a booster 

seat is within a few centimeters of the 

seated height of the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy used in the rear seat of 

IIHS’s dynamic side impact test. IIHS 

stated that in the most recent five years 

of side impact evaluations, more than 80 

percent of more than 200 vehicle makes 

and models received the top ratings for 

injury mitigation for the rear seat 

occupant, and that the proportion jumps 

to 95 percent for the most recent two 

years of evaluations. IIHS explained that 

in these tests, injury risk to rear-seat 

occupants is reduced by a combination 

of vehicle countermeasures such as 

curtain air bags, door structural 

improvements, and voluntary padding 

of the beltline. IIHS stated it expects 

‘‘vehicle countermeasures that have 

improved outcomes for the 5th 

percentile female dummy in our testing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39253 

94Harnesses and car beds are excepted from the 

standard. 

95ECE R.129, ‘‘Uniform provisions concerning 

the approval of enhanced child restraint systems 

used on board vehicles (ECRS),’’ http://

www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/ 

wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf. 

96ECE R.129, ‘‘Uniform provisions concerning 

the approval of enhanced child restraint systems 

used on board vehicles (ECRS),’’ http://

www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/ 

wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf. 

97 In 2010, FTSS merged to become Humanetics 

Innovative Solutions. 

98NHTSA is developing the ‘‘Large 

Omnidirectional Child (LODC)’’ 10-year-old child 

dummy, which is designed to have biofidelic 

performance in lateral and frontal impact. Most of 

the development work has been focused on frontal 

and oblique impacts. NHTSA plans to evaluate and 

enhance the dummy for side impact testing as well. 

99NCRUSS https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/ 

Public/ViewPublication/812142. 

would also reduce the likelihood of 

injury to a 6-year-old seated in a booster 

seat.’’ 

Agency Response 

After considering the comments and 

other available information, NHTSA has 

adopted the proposed application of 

FMVSS No. 213a for the reasons 

explained in the NPRM and further 

discussed below. Standard No. 213a 

will apply to add-on child restraint 

systems that are recommended for use 

by children in a weight range that 

includes weights up to 18.1 kg (40 lb).94

Several commenters suggested 

NHTSA adopt other test dummies to 

expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 

213a to CRSs for children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). Safe Kids, 

Consumers Union (CU) and Advocates 

urged NHTSA to develop a 6-year-old 

and/or 10-year-old child side impact 

dummy. Safe Ride News (SRN) 

encouraged the agency to work swiftly 

to adopt the Q6 dummy for use 

specifically in side impact tests. 

Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) 

supported using the omnidirectional QSeries dummies used for side impact 

testing in United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe Regulation 129 

(ECE R.129).95 TRL stated that the 

dummies were capable of distinguishing 

differences in the design of child 

restraints, and that a Q6s (6-year-old 

child dummy) has been developed, 

along with a side impact kit for the Q10 

(10-year-old child dummy). ARCCA 

suggested NHTSA use the Hybrid III 

(HIII) frontal impact 6-year-old dummy, 

and measure only head containment 

and structural integrity. In contrast, 

Graco cautioned that the use of larger 

test ATDs should be considered when 

they have been confirmed to withstand 

side impact crash forces and have 

proven biofidelity in the direction of a 

side collision. 

NHTSA has decided against 

expanding the applicability of FMVSS 

No. 213a to child restraints 

recommended for children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). TRL suggested 

NHTSA consider the Q-series dummies 

because they are currently used to test 

CRSs in United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe Regulation 129 

(ECE R.129).96 NHTSA disagrees with 

TRL. In 1999, First Technology Safety 

Systems (FTSS) 97 deemed the Q3 

dummy’s performance suboptimal in 

frontal testing, and even more so in 

lateral. FTSS developed the Q3s dummy 

in response to the Q3’s suboptimal 

lateral performance. NHTSA has not 

evaluated the lateral performance of the 

Q series 1-, 6- and 10-year-old dummies 

or Q series side impact kits, but 

understands them to have the same 

shortcomings as the original Q3. Given 

the unsatisfactory fundamental design 

of the Q dummies, NHTSA decided not 

to use limited agency resources 

furthering development of the Q-series 

6- and 10-year-old dummies.98

ARCCA suggested that NHTSA use 

the HIII frontal 6-year-old dummy to 

evaluate CRS structural integrity and 

head containment. The commenter 

argued that NHTSA could use the HIII 

6-year-old dummy since it will use the 

12-month-old frontal CRABI dummy in 

FMVSS No. 213a’s side impact test. 

NHTSA disagrees. As the agency 

explained in the NPRM, NHTSA 

decided to use the frontal CRABI 

dummy because it would be fully 

restrained by the child restraint on the 

SISA and no injury assessment 

reference values would be taken. That 

is, the test with the fully restrained 

frontal 12-month-old CRABI represents 

a best-case scenario for passing. If a 

child restraint allowed the CRABI’s 

head to contact the door under these 

best-case circumstances, that would be 

a clear demonstration, simply through 

observation of crash dynamics, that a 

child’s head would contact the door 

when involved in a real-world crash. 

Thus, while the 12-month-old CRABI 

dummy is not a side impact dummy, it 

could be applied in a useful manner to 

evaluate aspects of CRS performance in 

side impact. A failure to contain the 12- 

month-old CRABI’s head would lead to 

improved side impact designs (e.g., 

deeper side structure/wings or shape 

changes in CRS adjustable head 

restraints). 

The same cannot be said about the 

frontal 6-year-old test dummy. Children 

younger than 1-year of age have the 

highest use of CRSs with internal 

harnesses (nearly 100 percent per 

National Child Restraint Use Special 

Study (NCRUSS) 99), so fully restraining 

the 1-year-old CRABI in the test 

replicates how children will be 

restrained in the real world. In contrast, 

only 8 percent of children 6 years of age 

are restrained in CRSs with internal 

harnesses. If the HIII 6-year-old child 

dummy were restrained as 6-year-old 

children are usually restrained in the 

real world, it would be restrained in a 

booster with only a lap and shoulder 

belt. Many current booster seats could 

fail a head containment criterion when 

tested with a frontal 6-year-old dummy, 

even if the head of the 6-year-old 

dummy were above the beltline and 

therefore likely to interact with a side 

curtain air bag in an actual vehicle. To 

accurately simulate the side impact 

crash environment in such testing, a 

representation of the side air bag 

appears appropriate. This rulemaking 

has not considered the implications of 

including a side curtain air bag on the 

SISA and doing so is beyond the scope 

of this final rule. 

ARCCA believed that applying 

FMVSS No. 213a to child restraints for 

children weighing up to 29.5 kg (65 lb) 

would better protect children seated in 

far-side and center seating positions by 

preventing impact with other occupants 

and CRSs adjacent to the child, and 

helping assure they remain properly 

positioned in their restraint system. 

SRN believed it is likely that shorter 

children do not gain the full protection 

of side curtain air bags in the 18.1 to 

29.5 kg (40 to 65 lb) weight range. 

Neither commenter provided data to 

support their views. 

Advocates and others argued that 

MAP–21 does not limit improvements 

only to the use of CRS by children who 

weigh less than 18.1 kg (40 lb). NHTSA 

has determined that, while the language 

of section 31501(a) of MAP–21 is broad 

enough to encompass a large universe of 

child restraint systems, there are 

practical and technical reasons for 

applying the dynamic side impact test 

only to CRSs designed to seat children 

in a weight range that includes weights 

up to 18 kg (40 lb). First, the seated 

height of children weighing more than 

18 kg (40 lb) who are restrained in child 

restraints is typically sufficient to take 

advantage of the vehicle’s side impact 

protection systems, such as side curtain 

air bags. Thus, the safety need for 

Standard No. 213’s dynamic side impact 

requirements is attenuated for these 

CRSs. NHTSA has also determined that 

the test procedure of FMVSS No. 213a 

may not be appropriate for testing child 

restraints recommended for children 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39254 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

100See NPRM. 79 FR at 4572–4573. 

101Suntay, B., Carlson, M., Stammen, J., 

‘‘Evaluation of the Large Omni-Directional Child 

Anthropomorphic Test Device,’’ DOT HS 812 755, 

July 2019. Evaluation of the Large Omni-Directional 

Child Anthropomorphic Test Device (bts.gov). 

102 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

103 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). 

104 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 

105 Id. 

106Center for Disease Control (CDC) 2000 Growth 

Charts. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_

charts.htm. Last Accessed August 8, 2018. 

107NHTSA recommends that children riding 

forward-facing should be restrained in CRSs with 

internal harnesses (child safety seats) as long as 

possible before transitioning to a booster seat. 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-andbooster-seats#age-size-rec. 

108NHTSA’s November 2, 2020, NPRM, supra, 

also proposed that booster seats must not be labeled 

for children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb). 85 

FR at 69427, col. 3. FMVSS No. 213 currently 

permits booster seats only to be recommended for 

children weighing at least 13.6 kg (30 lb) (S5.5.2(f)). 

Based on an analysis of field data and other 

considerations, NHTSA proposed raising the 13.6 

kg (30 lb) value. We are concerned that 30 pounds 

corresponds to the weight of a 50th percentile 3- 

year-old, and to the weight of a 95th percentile 18- 

month-old; i.e., children too small to be safely 

protected in a booster seat. In the November 2, 2020 

NPRM, we proposed to amend S5.5.2(f) to raise the 

13.6 kg (30 lb) limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb), which is 

greater than the weight of a 97th percentile 3-yearold (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the weight 

of an 85th percentile 4-year-old. 

109These child restraints are commonly called 

‘‘combination seats.’’ They are sold for use with 

younger children (with a harness) and older 

children (as a booster seat) 

110This observation accords with NTSB’s 

comment that ‘‘the proposed tests encompass the 

majority of CRSs because the upper use limit for 

most small restraint systems extends to at least 40 

pounds and the lower use limit is at or below 40 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). A 

6-year-old in a child restraint will 

interact with vehicle side structures 

differently than a 3-year-old, 

particularly around the vehicle beltline 

and with respect to a side curtain air 

bag. The side impact seating assembly 

used in FMVSS No. 213a does not 

include a side curtain air bag. The 

agency is unable to conclude the side 

impact test reasonably replicates a nearside crash as would be experienced by 

a child weighing over 18.1 kg (40 lb) in 

the real world, since the side curtain air 

bag, a key vehicle countermeasure 

affecting injury outcome to occupants 

whose heads are above the beltline, is 

not represented in the test. 

Second, there is no side impact 

dummy representative of children larger 

than those represented by the Q3s that 

can reasonably be used to test CRSs for 

children above 18 kg (40 lb) to the 

dynamic side impact requirements in 

this final rule. As explained throughout 

this rulemaking,100 without an 

appropriate test dummy, the data from 

a dynamic test would not provide a 

meaningful assessment of the 

performance of the CRS in protecting 

children of weights above 18.1 kg (40 

lb). For FMVSS No. 213’s front-impact 

tests, NHTSA increased the 

applicability of the standard to 

increasingly higher weight limits 

gradually, and only when appropriate 

test dummies became available for use 

in compliance testing, to ensure test 

data were meaningful and to avoid 

giving a false sense of security about 

CRS performance. NHTSA is developing 

the Large Omni-Directional Child ATD 

representative of a seated 9- to 11-yearold child.101 When the development 

and standardization process of this 

child dummy is complete, NHTSA will 

consider a side impact test environment 

appropriate for evaluating CRSs 

intended for use by older and larger 

sized children than those subject to this 

final rule. 

MAP–21 requires a final rule 

amending FMVSS No. 213, which 

means that the rulemaking must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Safety Act. Under the Safety Act, 

NHTSA is authorized to prescribe 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

that are practicable, meet the need for 

motor vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms.102 ‘‘Motor vehicle 

safety’’ is defined in the Safety Act as 

‘‘the performance of a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment in a way that 

protects the public against unreasonable 

risk of accidents occurring because of 

the design, construction, or performance 

of a motor vehicle, and against 

unreasonable risk of death or injury in 

an accident, and includes 

nonoperational safety of a motor 

vehicle.’’ 103 When prescribing such 

standards, NHTSA must consider all 

relevant, available motor vehicle safety 

information, and consider whether a 

standard is reasonable, practicable, and 

appropriate for the particular type of 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment for which it is prescribed.104

NHTSA must also consider the extent to 

which the standard will further the 

statutory purpose of reducing traffic 

accidents and associated deaths.105

NHTSA has developed a standard that 

will improve the protection of children 

seated in child restraint systems during 

side impacts, in accordance with MAP– 

21, while meeting the criteria of Section 

30111 of the Safety Act. For the reasons 

explained above, the agency believes 

that FMVSS No. 213a meets the need for 

safety, is stated in objective terms, and 

is reasonable, practicable, and 

appropriate. 

e. Improving Side Impact Protection for 

Children Older Than 3-Years-Old 

To be clear, this final rule applying to 

child restraints for children weighing up 

to 18.1 kg (40 lb) will significantly 

improve side impact protection of most 

children up to age 6. According to the 

CDC growth charts, about 100 percent of 

3-year-old children, 75 percent of 4- 

year-old children, 50 percent of 5-yearold children, and 25 percent of 6-yearold children weigh 18.1 kg (40 lb) or 

less.106 Child restraints subject to this 

final rule can be used by all children 0- 

to 3-years of age, most 4-year-olds, half 

of 5-year-olds, and 25 percent of 6-yearold children. This final rule improves 

the side impact protection of all these 

children. 

This final rule not only improves the 

side impact protection offered by the 

safety seats but also increases the 

likelihood caregivers will keep the 

children in the safety seats longer before 

prematurely transitioning to a booster 

seat, which is an outcome that improves 

child safety.107 Booster seats typically 

do not have substantial side structure 

‘‘wings’’ or an internal belt system to 

restrain the child occupant, so it would 

be a technical challenge for booster seats 

to meet the side impact requirements of 

this final rule. However, because 

FMVSS No. 213a is written to apply 

specifically to child restraints for 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 

lb), manufacturers of booster seats will 

likely respond to this final rule by 

marketing the seats as only suitable for 

children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) (so as to exclude the seats from 

meeting FMVSS No. 213a). NHTSA 

believes such a change that limits use of 

booster seats by small children would 

benefit safety, as field data show that 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) are safer in child safety seats than in 

boosters.108 Thus, the 18.1 kg (40 lb) 

threshold will benefit child passenger 

safety, as it will help keep children too 

small for booster seats in child safety 

seats until they are ready for a booster 

seat. 

Further, this final rule will also 

benefit the side protection of children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) in 

several ways. A review of CRS models 

in the market suggests that most child 

restraints sold for children weighing 

less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) are designed to 

also be used by children weighing more 

than 18.1 kg (40 lb) as forward-facing 

CRSs with harnesses and as booster 

seats.109 As the seated height difference 

between a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old is 

only 3.5 inches, the countermeasures 

used by the combination seat to protect 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) could also benefit the older child in 

the booster seat mode.110 The restraints 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39255 

pounds . . .’’ ‘‘We recognize that children at 

weights less than or greater than 40 pounds benefit 

from the increased protection provided by a 

harnessed CRS.’’ 

111 79 FR at 4573, col. 2. 

112The IIHS SAE Government Industry meeting 

presentation titled ‘‘Booster seat characteristics in 

the US market’’ can be found in the docket. 

will have the same frame and can use 

the adjustable head protection and side 

padding countermeasures provided to 

meet this final rule to protect children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). 

This final rule will also improve the 

side impact protection of booster seats 

by better assuring that only children 

large enough (over 18.1 kg (40 lb)) to be 

protected by the side curtain air bag will 

use the seats. NHTSA stated in the 

preamble to the NPRM that the height 

of children weighing more than 18.1 kg 

(40 lb) seated in a CRS would be 

sufficient to take advantage of the 

vehicle’s side impact protection 

systems, such as side curtain air bags.111

IIHS provided data confirming that side 

curtain air bags can protect children 

weighing over 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in 

booster seats. The data show that the CG 

of the head of a 6-year-old child seated 

in a booster seat is above the beltline at 

600–650 mm above the vehicle seat, and 

is within a few centimeters of the 

position of the head of the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy. In 

IIHS’s tests, the vehicles received the 

top ratings for injury mitigation for the 

rear seat occupant represented by the 

5th percentile adult female test dummy, 

demonstrating the side curtain air bags, 

door structural improvements, and 

padding of the beltline were effective in 

protecting the 5th percentile adult 

female in side impacts. IIHS’s data 

indicate a 6-year-old in a booster is 

situated in the rear seat similarly to a 

5th percentile female, and that both 

occupants will be positioned relative to 

the beltline and the side curtain air bags 

in a manner that would enable them to 

benefit from the vehicle 

countermeasures. 

NHTSA has also reviewed more 

recent data IIHS presented at the 2018 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

Government Industry Meeting.112 The 

study showed that the HIII–6-year-old 

head CG in a high back booster and a 

backless booster are above the beltline 

and are 33 and 64 mm lower, 

respectively, than that of the SID–IIs 5th 

percentile female side impact dummy. 

These data again verify that a 6-year-old 

child in a booster will be in-position to 

be protected by the vehicle’s side 

impact protection countermeasures, 

which include the side curtain air bag 

and door structural improvements. 

Following on these findings, NHTSA 

measured the HIII 6-year-old dummy in 

four booster seat models installed on the 

SISA and compared its positioning with 

the SID–IIs dummy seated directly on 

the SISA. The booster seats were the 

Evenflo Chase and the Graco Nautilus 

(high back boosters), and the Harmony 

Youth and the Graco Affix (backless 

boosters). The measurements show that 

the HIII 6-year-old dummy’s head CG, 

when seated in the highest booster seat 

(Graco Nautilus 65) is 1 mm higher than 

that of the SID–IIs dummy seated on the 

SISA, and less than 5 cm (47.5 mm) 

lower than the SID–IIs dummy’s head 

when seated in the shortest booster seat 

(Graco Affix). All head CGs were above 

the beltline (see Figure 2). 

These data confirm the similarity 

between the head position of the 6-yearold dummy seated in a booster seat and 

that of the 5th percentile female 

dummy. FMVSS No. 226 ejection 

mitigation phase-in requirements were 

completed in September 2017. Thus, not 

only will all new vehicles have side 

curtain air bag technologies that will 

protect these older children in booster 

seats, but most of the fleet will 

incorporate these technologies by the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.005</GPH>
39256 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

113 Klinich, Kathleen D., Jones, Monica H., 

Manary, Miriam A., Ebert, Sheila H., Boyle, Kyle J., 

Malik, Laura, Orton, Nichole R., Reed, Matthew P., 

(2020, April). Investigation of potential design and 

performance criteria for booster seats through 

volunteer and dynamic testing (Report No. DOT HS 

812 919). Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. Link: https:// 

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119. 

114 79 FR at 4601. 

115Center for Disease Control (CDC) 2000 Growth 

Charts. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_

charts.htm... Last Accessed August 8, 2018. 

compliance date of this final rule. The 

technologies can benefit older and larger 

children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) or with a stature of more than 1100 

mm (43.3 inches) when the children are 

properly positioned by a typical booster 

seat. 

The safety of booster seats will be 

directly improved by assuring that only 

children large enough to be protected by 

the side curtain air bag will use the 

seats. Until this final rule, booster seats 

could be labeled for children with 

weights as low as 13.6 kg (30 lb). 

Restricting booster seat use instructions 

to children weighing more than 18.1 kg 

(40 lb) will help ensure they will be 

used only by children large enough to 

take advantage of a vehicle’s side 

protection countermeasures. Booster 

seats have been shown to be highly 

beneficial in frontal crashes, and are 

needed to transition children from 

safety seats to a vehicle belt system. 

This final rule increases the safety of 

booster seats by enhancing their utility 

in side impacts, in furtherance of MAP– 

21’s mandate to improve the protection 

of children seated in child restraint 

systems during side impacts. 

Since the NPRM’s publication in 

2014, NHTSA has seen a few boosterseat models that provide a lower than 

typical boosting height (the height that 

a booster seat raises a seated child), 

which may not raise the height of 

children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) sufficiently to take advantage of the 

vehicle countermeasures. Subsequently, 

NHTSA sponsored a research 

program 113 as a first step toward 

determining a minimum boosting height 

for CRSs recommended for children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) to 

ensure that these children can benefit 

from the vehicle countermeasures and 

that the CRSs provide enough lift to 

position the child properly relative to 

the vehicle’s lap and shoulder belts. 

More on this research is discussed at a 

later section of this final rule. 

f. Weight as a Limiting Factor 

Advocates stated ‘‘a discussion of 

why weight alone is being proposed as 

a limitation should be provided, 

considering the repeated discussion of 

the obesity problem facing the nation’s 

youth and the agency’s 

acknowledgement that seated height, 

rather than weight alone, is the 

determining factor.’’ 

Agency Response 

The applicability of the standard is 

not only based on the child weight 

recommendation for use of the CRS but 

also on the child height 

recommendation. The NPRM proposed 

in S3 to apply the standard to ‘‘add-on 

child restraint systems, except for 

harnesses and car beds, that are 

recommended for use by children in a 

weight range that includes weights up to 

18.1 kg (40 lb), or by children in a 

height range that includes children 

whose height is not greater than 1100 

mm.’’ 114 This final rule adopts the 

proposed S3. Additionally, the dummy 

selection for side impact dynamic 

testing is made taking into consideration 

weight and height. Any CRS that is 

recommended for children weighing 

between 13.6 kg (30 lb) (corresponding 

to a 95th percentile 18-month-old) and 

18.1 kg (40 lb) (corresponding to a 85th 

percentile 4-year-old) or a height 

between 870 mm (34.3 inches) 

(corresponding to a 95th percentile 18- 

month-old) and 1100 mm (43.3 inches) 

(corresponding to a 97th percentile 4- 

year-old) will be tested with the Q3s 

dummy (see Table 15). 

TABLE 15—COMPARISON OF WEIGHT AND HEIGHT BY PERCENTILES FOR YOUNG CHILDREN AND CHILD ATDS 115

Percentiles 

Weight kg (lb) Height mm (in) 

3rd 5th 50th 95th 97th 3rd 5th 50th 95th 97th 

12 MO Child ...... 8.1 (18.1) 8.3 (18.5) 9.9 (22) 11.9 (26.4) 12.2 (27.2) 697.1 (27.4) 703.2 (27.7) 750.6 (29.6) 800.2 (31.5) 807.5 (31.8) 

12 MO CRABI ... .................. .................. 9.9 (22.05) .................... .................... .................... .................... 740.4 (29.15) ...................... ......................

18 MO Child ...... 9.3 (20.7) 9.5 (21.2) 11.3 (25.2) 13.5 (30.1) 14 (31) 753.6 (29.7) 761.1 (30) 814.4 (32.1) 868.2 (34.2) 875.9 (34.5) 

18 MO CRABI ... .................. .................. 11.1 (24.7) .................... .................... .................... .................... 817.9 (32.2) ...................... ......................

24 MO Child ...... 10.1 (22.5) 10.4 (23) 12.3 (27.4) 14.8 (32.9) 15.3 (33.9) 800.5 (31.5) 809 (31.9) 866.9 (34.1) 924.8 (36.4) 933.8 (36.8) 

36 MO Child ...... 11.4 (25.4) 11.9 (26.4) 13.9 (31) 17.2 (38.1) 17.7 (39.3) 875.9 (34.5) 884.9 (34.8) 947.4 (37.3) 1013.8 (39.9) 1023.7 (40.3) 

Q3s .................... .................. .................. 14.5 (32) .................... .................... .................... .................... 978 (38.5) ...................... ......................

48 MO Child ...... 12.9 (28.7) 13.2 (29.4) 16 (35.5) 20.2 (44.8) 46.6 (46.6) 936.5 (36.9) 946.4 (37.3) 1015.8 (40) 1087.7 (42.8) 1098.2 (43.2) 

The commenter’s reference to ‘‘the 

obesity problem facing the nation’s 

youth’’ was not clear, but it could be 

that Advocates was arguing that the 

standard should apply to child 

restraints for children weighing more 

than 18.1 kg (40 lb). NHTSA disagrees 

with increasing the 40-lb threshold 

because the absence of a test dummy to 

test the side impact protection provided 

to heavier children makes raising the 

threshold non-evidence based and could 

provide a false sense of security about 

the protection afforded to the larger 

children. This issue is discussed at 

length in the section discussing the 

scope of the new standard. 

g. Labeling CRSs for Children Weighing 

Over 18.1 kg (40 lb) 

1. Label as ‘‘Not Tested in Side Impacts’’ 

Comments Received 

Advocates commented that booster 

seats designed for children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) should be 

labeled to provide parents with a 

warning that their child may not be 

protected in a side crash. Advocates 

stated that the warning should indicate 

‘‘this CRS has not been tested in side 

impacts for the protection of children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb).’’ 

Similarly, a law student group suggested 

there should be labeling or consumer 

information on the packaging of CRSs 

informing consumers that the CRS has 

not been tested for side impact crashes 

for children weighing more than 18.1 kg 

(40 lb). 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has carefully considered the 

request but declines to adopt such a 

requirement in this final rule. The issue 

was not discussed in the NPRM, and 

NHTSA would like the benefit of more 

public discourse on the ramifications of 

such a requirement. NHTSA highly 

values consumers’ knowing how child 

restraints can protect their children’s 

safety. However, information provided 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39257 

116 Klinich, Kathleen D., Jones, Monica H., 

Manary, Miriam A., Ebert, Sheila H., Boyle, Kyle J., 

Malik, Laura, Orton, Nichole R., Reed, Matthew P., 

(2020, April). Investigation of potential design and 

performance criteria for booster seats through 

volunteer and dynamic testing (Report No. DOT HS 

812 919). Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. Link: https:// 

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119. 

117As explained above in this document, FMVSS 

No. 214 specifies performance requirements for the 

protection of occupants in side impact crashes. In 

a full-scale crash test representing a severe 

intersection collision between two passenger 

vehicles, FMVSS No. 214 requires passenger 

vehicles to protect occupants when the vehicle is 

struck on either side by an MDB simulating an 

impacting vehicle. The FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash 

test involves an MDB weighing 1,360 kg (3,000 lb), 

to represent a vehicle which is traveling at 48.3 

kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour 

(mph)) striking the side of another vehicle which 

is traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph). In the FMVSS No. 

214 test, only the striking ‘‘vehicle,’’ represented by 

the MDB, is moving. Using vector analysis, the 

agency combined the impact speed and impact 

angle data in crash files to determine that the 

dynamics and forces of a crash in which a vehicle 

traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) perpendicularly 

strikes the side of a vehicle traveling at 24.1 km/ 

h (15 mph) could be represented by a test 

configuration in which: the test vehicle is 

stationary; the longitudinal centerline of the MDB 

is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of 

the test vehicle; the front and rear wheels of the 

MDB are crabbed at an angle of 27 degrees to the 

right of its longitudinal centerline in a left side 

impact and to the left of that centerline in a right 

side impact; and the MDB moves at that angle and 

at a speed of 54 km/h (33.5 mph) into the side of 

the struck vehicle. 

118An acceleration sled is accelerated from rest 

to a prescribed acceleration profile to simulate the 

occupant compartment deceleration in a crash 

event. In comparison, a ‘‘deceleration sled’’ is first 

accelerated to a target velocity and then is 

decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile to 

simulate the same event. 

119See Docket No. NHTSA–2007–26833–0023 for 

a transcript of the February 8, 2007 meeting where 

Takata gave a presentation on its side impact test 

procedure. NHTSA also published two papers on 

the agency’s research and testing on the Takata test 

procedure (Sullivan (2009) and Sullivan (2011), 

discussed infra). 

on or with child restraints must be 

carefully worded so as not to confuse 

caregivers or cause unintended 

responses to it. For example, the agency 

is concerned that a statement such as, 

‘‘This CRS has not been tested in side 

impacts for the protection of children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb)’’ 

may be interpreted by some as saying 

the CRS is not regulated in any way 

under any Federal standard, since an 

average consumer is unlikely to know 

the applicability or extent of FMVSS 

No. 213 versus FMVSS No. 213a. Before 

adopting such a labeling requirement, 

NHTSA should evaluate the risk that a 

caregiver might respond to the label by 

deciding to forgo use of a booster seat 

or other CRS entirely when the child 

reaches 18.1 kg (40 lb). Such an 

outcome would lead to a degradation of 

child passenger safety. NHTSA is also 

concerned that the statement might 

dampen efforts on the part of 

researchers and engineers to develop 

potential improvements to side impact 

protection for older children, such as by 

developing data-driven 

countermeasures using methods (e.g., 

mathematical models along with human 

body models) that simulate the side 

impact test of this final rule. 

2. Head Under Window Sill 

Advocates suggested that instructions 

to parents (either in vehicle manuals or 

other sources) should indicate that 

children below a certain height, or 

whose head does not reach entirely 

above the sill of the vehicle window, 

should be restrained properly in a safety 

seat since they may not be afforded 

protection by side impact safety 

requirements designed to protect adults. 

The commenter suggested that a similar 

form of diagram and wording on booster 

seats for taller and/or heavier children 

would also assist parents in selecting 

the proper seating method to ensure 

protection. The law students suggested 

that the packaging should indicate that 

children whose heads do not reach 

above the windowsill should be 

restrained in a CRS. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is declining these suggestions 

to adopt the measures in this final rule. 

The agency would like to know more 

about the need for such instructions and 

their effectiveness. NHTSA is 

conducting a research program to 

determine a minimum boosting height 

for CRSs recommended for children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). As 

a first step, NHTSA evaluated the 

boosting height of current booster seat 

designs recommended for children 

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). The 

evaluation included posture and belt fit 

measures for 24 child volunteers aged 4 

to 12 seated in six different booster seat 

models that were installed in 3 different 

vehicle models and in laboratory seating 

conditions representing the range of 

cushion lengths and belt geometries in 

later model vehicle rear seats.116 Among 

the program’s next steps, the research 

will seek to determine whether CRS 

seating platforms should be at least a 

minimum height to position the head of 

the child high enough to benefit from 

vehicle side impact protection 

countermeasures. If a minimum 

boosting height can be determined, 

NHTSA may consider rulemaking to 

specify a minimum boosting height. 

Results from NHTSA’s research will 

help inform the agency as to whether 

the suggested warning label is merited 

for some CRSs. 

VII. Aspects of the FMVSS 213a Test 

Procedure 

NHTSA developed this final rule to 

replicate a vehicle-to-vehicle 

intersection crash. NHTSA explained in 

the NPRM that this side impact is best 

replicated in a test procedure that 

reflects the dynamic elements of both 

the striking and struck vehicle in the 

crash. NHTSA stated that a side impact 

test procedure should account for: (1) 

the struck vehicle door velocity prior to 

the interaction of the striking vehicle 

with the door sill of the struck vehicle, 

(2) the acceleration profile of the struck 

vehicle, and (3) the impact angle to 

replicate the longitudinal component of 

the direction of force. NHTSA 

concluded that basing the specification 

of these parameters on actual vehicle 

crash characteristics would enable the 

realistic simulation of the relative 

velocity between the intruding door and 

the CRS. Accordingly, the agency 

developed FMVSS No. 213a to simulate 

a full-scale vehicle-to-vehicle side 

impact based on the MDB requirements 

of FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side impact 

protection.’’ 117

Introduction 

To simulate the side impact crash for 

purposes of testing CRS performance, 

NHTSA proposed using a dynamic sled 

test based on an acceleration sled 

system 118 that was developed by 

Takata.119 The Takata procedure is 

based on an acceleration sled with a test 

buck consisting of a sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ 

seat (representative of a rear seat 

designated seating position) mounted to 

a rail system, along with a ‘‘side door’’ 

structure rigidly mounted to the sled 

buck structure. Aluminum honeycomb 

is mounted below the side door 

structure. The side door is made to 

reach a desired velocity prior to the 

aluminum honeycomb contacting the 

sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat structure. 

Together, the sliding seat and door 

structure are referred to as the side 

impact seat assembly (SISA). Figure 3 

shows the Takata sled system test 

procedure. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39258 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

120Sullivan, L.K., Louden, A.E., ‘‘NHTSA’s Initial 

Evaluation of Child Side Impact Test Procedures,’’ 

21st International Conference on the Enhanced 

Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 09–0539, 2009 

[hereinafter Sullivan et al. (2009)]. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

NHTSA conducted three studies in 

advance of the NPRM to identify test 

parameters that would adapt the Takata 

sled system for use in FMVSS No. 213a. 

NHTSA’s 2009 Initial Evaluation of 

Child Side Impact Test Procedures 120

used a modified Takata test buck to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39259 

121Sullivan, L.K., Louden, A.E., Echemendia, 

C.G. ‘‘NHTSA’s Evaluation of a Potential Child Side 

Impact Test Procedure’’ 22nd International 

Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 

ESV Paper No. 2011–0227, 2011 [hereinafter 

Sullivan et al. (2011)]. 

122Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ‘‘Vehicle Rear Seat 

Study,’’ Technical Report, July 2012. Docket No. 

NHTSA–2014–0012, Item No. 0005 (hereinafter 

2012 Vehicle Rear Seat Study). 

123Sullivan et al. (2009). 

124Sullivan et al. (2011). 

125See NPRM, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020, 

supra. 

develop test parameters that would 

simulate the FMVSS No. 214 test 

procedure. The selected parameters 

were based on ten vehicles that had 

previously been tested in accordance 

with FMVSS No. 214 and a series of 

four full-scale crash tests. NHTSA 

concluded that the sled test procedure 

appeared to be repeatable and could 

distinguish between child restraint 

models using some of the injury 

measures. Comparison of results from 

side impact sled tests using the Q3s 

dummy with comparable full-scale 

vehicle side impact crash tests indicated 

that the dummy responses exhibited 

similar trends in the sled and full 

vehicle crash tests. NHTSA also 

announced its intention to perform 

further sled testing to refine test 

parameters such as door stiffness and 

geometry, and to further assess issues 

such as the effect of an armrest on CRS 

kinematics and dummy responses. 

The follow up to NHTSA’s initial 

evaluation, NHTSA’s 2011 Evaluation of 

a Potential Side Impact Test 

Procedure,121 presented subsequent 

tests and vehicle surveys conducted to 

determine characteristics of various 

components of side impact test bucks 

such as the seat cushion, door panel, 

and an armrest that would result in 

improved real world representation of 

the side impact sled test procedure. 

NHTSA also conducted a vehicle 

survey 122 to examine the geometry and 

contact characteristics of vehicle rear 

seats in order to select the geometry and 

material characteristics necessary to 

replicate the physical environment of a 

typical rear seat in a side impact test. 

The 2012 Vehicle Rear Seat Study 

recorded measurements of 43 individual 

rear seating position in 24 model year 

2010 vehicles to obtain dimensional 

characteristics of rear seat attributes that 

could affect the performance of CRS in 

the rear seat compartment. In addition, 

NHTSA surveyed the features of vehicle 

child restraint anchorage systems in 

furtherance of the agency’s data on the 

systems. As discussed further below, 

NHTSA relied on these measurements 

to create a rear seat environment for the 

SISA that represented vehicles in the 

modern fleet. 

NHTSA’s studies showed that the 

Takata-based test procedure 

demonstrated versatility for tuning 

parameters to obtain the desired test 

environment. NHTSA could tune the 

parameters to simulate the two-vehicle 

side crash replicated in the MDB test of 

FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA also noted that 

the test could be easily modified to 

change the impact angle to introduce 

the longitudinal crash component 

present in the FMVSS No. 214 tests. In 

addition, in its preliminary evaluation 

of the Takata test protocol, after making 

minor modification to the test 

parameters 123 NHTSA determined that 

the test procedure was repeatable and 

could provide results that distinguished 

between the performance of various CRS 

models based on the design of the side 

wings and stiffness of the CRS 

padding.124

Accordingly, based on the agency’s 

research, NHTSA proposed a side 

impact test for FMVSS No. 213a based 

on a refined and improved Takata sled 

design. In addition, the NPRM proposed 

test specifications developed by NHTSA 

ensuring the test procedure 

appropriately simulates the FMVSS No. 

214 MDB test, including the velocity of 

the striking vehicle, the struck vehicle 

and the intruding door. Specifically, the 

NPRM proposed the following 

specifications of the sled test to simulate 

the FMVSS No. 214 MDB impact test of 

a small passenger car with the child 

dummy restrained in a CRS positioned 

in the rear seat near-side of the impact: 

1. The test buck consists of a sliding 

seat mounted to a rail system along with 

a ‘‘side door’’ structure rigidly mounted 

to the sled buck structure. The sliding 

seat and side door are representative of 

today’s passenger vehicles. The sliding 

seat of this ‘‘side impact seat assembly’’ 

(SISA) is positioned sufficiently away 

from the side door to allow the sled to 

reach a desired velocity (31.3 km/h) 

prior to the time the sliding seat starts 

to accelerate to a specific acceleration 

profile. 

2. The center of the CRS is positioned 

300 mm from the edge of the sliding seat 

next to the intruding door (simulating a 

near-side position). At the time the 

sliding seat starts to accelerate, the 

armrest on the door is located 32 mm 

(1.3 inches) from the edge of the seat 

towards the CRS. 

3. CRSs would be installed on the 

sliding seat using CRAS. Beltpositioning seats covered by the NPRM 

would be tested using a lap and 

shoulder belt on the sliding seat of the 

SISA. 

4. NHTSA proposed injury criteria 

(expressed in terms of HIC15 and chest 

deflection) for the Q3s. We proposed 

just to require head containment of the 

12-month-old CRABI (assess the ability 

of the CRS to prevent the ATD’s head 

from contacting the intruding door of 

the SISA). In addition, the NPRM 

proposed to require CRSs to meet 

structural integrity requirements when 

tested with the respective ATDs, and 

other assorted performance criteria for 

belts and buckles. 

a. Overview 

In this final rule, NHTSA finalizes a 

test procedure that builds on the SISA 

and test specifications proposed in the 

NPRM. The agency has adjusted the 

final test procedure from that proposed 

in the NPRM, after considering the 

comments, results of additional testing 

of the SISA, and the agency’s work on 

the proposed FMVSS No. 213 frontal 

test procedures.125 As discussed further 

below, we modified the SISA to 

minimize variability in installation, 

make the SISA equipment more durable, 

and better match the proposed frontal 

FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly. In 

addition, we further specified some of 

the side test parameters, including a 

relative door velocity profile and the 

distance of the door armrest to the 

vehicle seat, to improve the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test procedure. The final SISA and test 

specifications are discussed below in 

turn. 

b. Side Impact Seat Assembly 

Characteristics 

The side impact seat assembly (SISA) 

consists of a sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat 

mounted to a rail system, along with a 

side door structure rigidly mounted to 

the sled buck structure. In the NPRM, 

NHTSA described the agency’s efforts to 

ensure that the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat 

and side door would be representative 

of today’s passenger vehicles. Both 

NHTSA’s initial evaluation studies and 

the 2012 Vehicle Rear Seat Study, 

discussed above, examined the 

geometry and contact characteristics of 

present-day vehicle rear seats. The 

agency used this information to design 

a seat assembly with the geometry and 

material characteristics that were 

necessary to replicate the physical 

environment of a typical rear seat 

relevant to the side impact test. NHTSA 

identified the following rear seat 

features to replicate in the SISA: (1) rear 

seat geometry (seat back angle, seat pan 

angle, beltline height from 

approximately the vehicle seat bight 

(i.e., the intersection of the seat cushion 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39260 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

126The original Takata sled buck did not include 

an armrest. NHTSA modified the sled buck to 

include an armrest. 

127Sullivan et al. (2011). 

128Sullivan et al. (2011). 

and the seat back), height of the top of 

the armrest (from the seat bight)), (2) 

rear seat cushion stiffness, and (3) door 

shape (height of window, armrest 

thickness (protrusion of the armrest 

from the door 126)) and padding. 

In addition, NHTSA performed a 

series of sled tests as a sensitivity 

analysis to better understand the effect 

of the sled system configuration on 

dummy responses.127 The parameters 

evaluated were the seat cushion 

stiffness, door padding stiffness, 

presence of armrest, and windowsill 

height. 

Based on the agency’s research, 

NHTSA proposed using a SISA for the 

FMVSS No. 213a test procedure that 

modified aspects of the original Takata 

sled specifications to make the SISA 

better represent the rear seat 

environment. Figure 4 shows the 

proposed SISA. 

The proposed SISA had the following 

specifications: 

• A single seating position 

representing a rear outboard seating 

position. 

• Seat back and seat pan angles of 20 

and 15 degrees, respectively, which is 

the same as the original Takata buck. 

Both angles were well within the ranges 

found in NHTSA’s vehicle survey, and 

those angles were the same as the ECE 

R.44 bench seat. 

• ECE R.44 rear seat cushion foam. 

NHTSA proposed using this foam 

because it was more representative of 

the stiffness of current rear seats in the 

vehicle fleet than other cushion foams 

surveyed (FMVSS No. 213, NPACS). 

However, NHTSA also noted that 

sensitivity studies showed seat foam 

cushion stiffness had little effect on 

dummy responses in the side impact 

test procedure. 

• A 64 mm (2.5 inches) thick armrest 

attached to a 51 mm (2 inches) thick 

door panel. The armrest was a ‘‘stiff’’ 

foam (United Foam #4), attached to an 

‘‘average’’ stiffness foam padding door 

(Ethafoam 220). NHTSA stated that this 

configuration appeared to be 

representative of the rear seat 

environment, and the armrest stiffness 

using the ‘‘stiff’’ United Foam #3 was 

within the range of armrest thickness of 

surveyed vehicles. Importantly, dummy 

responses with this armrest/door 

configuration were similar to those seen 

in vehicle crash tests.128

• A beltline height of 500 mm (19.6 

inches). Although this value was 

slightly higher than the average beltline 

height of vehicles surveyed (489 mm), 

NHTSA proposed the 500-mm value to 

ensure that the proposed side impact 

test was sufficiently stringent to account 

for vehicle beltlines that were higher 

than the average value. 

• Lower anchorages of the CRAS 

symmetrically located on either side of 

the centerline of the simulated outboard 

seating position of the SISA bench seat. 

The location of the top tether anchorage 

was on the lower rear frame of the seat, 

similar to the typical location of a tether 

anchorage in captain’s seats in 

minivans. 

In addition to these aspects of the 

SISA that the agency discussed in the 

preamble, NHTSA included detailed 

drawings of the SISA in the docket for 

the NPRM, which further specified 

materials and measurements of every 

part of the SISA. 

While NHTSA welcomed comments 

on all aspects of the proposed rule, the 

agency sought comment on specific 

aspects of the SISA, including the 

proposed seat cushion foam and seat 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39261 

129NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy 

Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013 

(Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0108–0032). 

130Quoting MAP–21, § 31501(b), ‘‘Frontal Impact 

Test Parameters.’’ 

131 79 FR at 4586, col. 2. 

132 85 FR at 69393. 

133 Id., col. 2–3. 134Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

135The NPACS consortium was funded in 2005 

by governments of the United Kingdom, the 

Netherlands, Germany, the Generalitat of Catalonia, 

and five non-governmental organizations. The 

objective of NPACS is to provide scientifically 

based EU wide harmonized test and rating protocols 

to offer consumers clear and understandable 

information about dynamic performance and 

usability of child restraint systems. NPACS is 

similar to NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP), and to the NCAP program administered in 

Europe (EuroNCAP), in that NPACS is a voluntary 

consumer information program, rather than a 

binding regulation. (Note, however, that NPACS is 

designed to test CRSs, while NCAP focuses on 

vehicle performance.) 

136Sullivan et al. (2011). 

cushion assembly. In addition, NHTSA 

had stated the agency had initiated a 

research program to evaluate how the 

test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 

frontal sled test should be updated to 

reflect any significant real-world 

developments.129 The agency stated it 

planned to develop a test bench seat 

with seat cushion stiffness that has 

characteristics of seat cushions in recent 

vehicle models, pursuant to MAP–21’s 

mandate to amend the standard seat 

assembly specifications under FMVSS 

No. 213’s frontal test ‘‘to better simulate 

a single representative motor vehicle 

rear seat.’’ 130 NHTSA stated in the 

NPRM for side impact 131 that it would 

consider, to the extent possible under 

the timeframes for the research and 

rulemaking programs, the merits of 

using this updated frontal test seat 

cushion foam in the side impact sled. 

Since publication of the 2014 NPRM, 

NHTSA continued to develop a 

standard seat assembly for upgrading 

the FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact sled 

test using the SISA sliding seat as a 

starting point. The November 2, 2020 

NPRM proposing amendments to 

FMVSS No. 213 described the agency’s 

continued work updating aspects of the 

vehicle rear seat environment, such as 

the seat back height, seat cushion 

stiffness, and CRAS and seat belt 

anchorage locations, so that the frontal 

impact seat assembly would be more 

representative of vehicle rear seats. The 

proposed standard seat assembly for the 

frontal impact sled test is similar to the 

proposed SISA sliding seat, although 

the proposed frontal impact seat 

assembly has some more up-to-date 

specifications for features such as the 

seat cushion thickness, seat back height 

and anchorage locations. These 

differences were described in detail in 

the November 2, 2020 NPRM.132

In the November 2020 NPRM, NHTSA 

sought comment on whether the side 

impact test seat assembly and the seat 

assembly proposed in the 2020 NPRM 

should be consistent.133 NHTSA stated 

in the November 2, 2020 NPRM that 

using the same specifications of the 

standard seat assembly (including seat 

geometry, seat cushion, and anchorage 

locations) for both the side impact test 

and a frontal impact test would make 

sense, since the agency is seeking to test 

CRSs on a representative seat assembly 

and the same passenger vehicles are 

involved in side and frontal crashes. 

The agency also stated that the 

standard seat assembly proposed in the 

January 2014 side impact NPRM is 

substantially like the seat proposed in 

the November 2020 NPRM, but that 

NHTSA believes the seat assembly 

proposed in the November 2020 NPRM 

is a better seat assembly primarily 

regarding the cushion foam. NHTSA 

explained that the January 2014 NPRM 

specified use of the ECE R.44 seat 

cushion, while the November 2020 

proposed seat assembly incorporates 

seat cushion foam that is more 

representative of the seat cushion 

stiffness of the current vehicle fleet. 

NHTSA stated that the proposed seat 

cushion ‘‘is also easier to procure than 

the ECE R.44 foam. Commenters to the 

January 2014 side impact NPRM 

expressed concerns about the difficulty 

to source the ECE R44 seat foam, which 

is only available from one overseas 

supplier. [Footnote omitted.] NHTSA 

tentatively believes that using the foam 

specified in this NPRM for the frontal 

test seat assembly would alleviate those 

concerns.’’ 

Four commenters (Evenflo, Cybex, 

Graco and Consumer Reports) to the 

November 2, 2020 frontal upgrade 

NPRM expressed support for having 

consistent side and frontal impact test 

seat assemblies in FMVSS No. 213 and 

FMVSS No. 213a, respectively. Evenflo 

noted that using the same seat assembly 

in both test methods will reduce 

variables in assessing a CRSs. Cybex 

commented that having a more 

representative seat assembly as the one 

proposed for the frontal impact sled test 

would be beneficial to real-world 

crashworthiness. No commenter 

opposed having consistency between 

the seat assembly used in the frontal 

and side impact sled tests. 

NHTSA is moving forward with a 

SISA that differs from the 2014 

proposed SISA in some respects to make 

it more representative of rear seats in 

the current vehicle fleet, to address 

comments, and to better align the SISA 

with the proposed seat assembly for the 

FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact test. 

These structural changes and the 

agency’s responses to other comments 

on the SISA are discussed in detail, 

below. Other minor modifications, like 

minor changes to accelerometer 

placement and the addition of stiffening 

structures to reduce vibrations, are 

discussed more at length in the ‘‘FMVSS 

No. 213 Side Impact Test Evaluation 

and Revision’’ report included in the 

docket for this final rule.134

NHTSA believes that the above 

modifications make the SISA better 

representative of the rear seat 

environment and better able to 

reproduce the characteristics of a side 

impact. In addition, these modifications 

address comments on the availability 

and durability of materials used in the 

SISA, and address comments on 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

final test procedure. Importantly, and as 

discussed further below, NHTSA 

performed tests with the final SISA 

configuration to compare the test results 

with those using the proposed SISA, 

and concluded that test results with the 

updated SISA in this final rule are not 

significantly different from those with 

the proposed SISA. The following 

sections discuss comments on aspects of 

the sliding seat, door, and maintenance 

of the SISA. 

1. Seat Characteristics 

i. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness 

To determine the stiffness of the seat 

foam for the proposed SISA, NHTSA 

considered several data points. We 

considered the vehicle survey that 

measured the rear seat cushion stiffness 

of 13 vehicles, as well as the seat 

cushion stiffness of the seat cushions 

used in FMVSS No. 213, the United 

Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe, ‘‘Uniform provisions 

concerning the approval of restraining 

devices for child occupants of powerdriven vehicles (child restraint 

systems)’’ (ECE R.44), and the New 

Programme for the Assessment of Child 

Restraint Systems (NPACS) 135

programs.136 The results of the survey 

showed that the FMVSS No. 213 foam 

was softer than all the vehicle seat 

foams surveyed. The ECE R.44 and 

NPACS foams were stiffer than the 

FMVSS No. 213 foam, and more 

representative of the vehicles surveyed. 

However, NHTSA’s sensitivity analysis 

to determine the effect of the seat 

cushion stiffness on dummy readings 

and CRS performance showed that seat 

cushion foam stiffness had little effect 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39262 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

137Tylko, S., Locey, C.M., Garcia-Espana, J.F., 

Arbogast, K.B., & Maltese, M.R. 2013. Comparative 

performance of rear facing child restraint systems 

on the CMVSS 213 bench and vehicle seats. Ann 

Adv Automot Med 2013. 57, 311. 

138The Woodbridge Group is a supplier of 

automotive seat foam, http://www.woodbridge

group.com. 

139The NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion consists 

of the foam material covered by the cover used in 

test procedures of ECE R.44. The ECE R.44 cover 

material is a sun shade cloth made of poly-acrylate 

fiber with a specific mass of 290 (g/m2) and a 

lengthwise and breadthwise breaking strength of 

120 kg (264.5 pounds) and 80 kg (176.3 pounds), 

respectively. 

140Wietholter, K., Louden, A., Sullivan, L., & 

Burton, R. (2021, September). Evaluation of seat 

foams for the FMVSS No. 213 test bench. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

on the dummy responses in these side 

impact tests. 

Accordingly, NHTSA initially 

proposed that the seat cushion foam for 

the SISA have the stiffness of the ECE 

R.44 seat foam, given that the ECE R.44 

foam was more representative of the 

current rear seats in the vehicle fleet 

than the FMVSS No. 213 cushion foam. 

At that time, NHTSA had not yet 

developed the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat 

cushion foam, so NHTSA stated that the 

agency preferred the ECE R.44 foam 

over the NPACS foam because although 

the two foams were similar in stiffness, 

the ECE R.44 foam was more readily 

available than the NPACS foam. NHTSA 

invited comment on this proposed seat 

cushion foam and seat cushion 

assembly. 

NHTSA also stated that the agency 

had initiated a research program to 

evaluate how the test parameters of the 

FMVSS No. 213 frontal sled test should 

be updated to reflect any significant 

real-world developments. Within this 

program, NHTSA planned to develop a 

test bench seat with seat cushion 

stiffness characteristic of seat cushions 

in recent vehicle models. NHTSA stated 

that the agency would consider, to the 

extent possible under the timeframes for 

the research and rulemaking programs, 

the merits of using this updated seat 

cushion foam in the side impact sled. 

Comments Received 

CU, Dorel, Graco and UPPAbaby 

commented that the ECE R.44 foam was 

appropriate for side impact testing. CU 

and UPPAbaby also suggested including 

the same foam in the FMVSS No. 213 

frontal impact test. CU added that the 

ECE R.44 foam should be used in the 

frontal impact FMVSS No. 213 test 

because a stiffer standard seat foam may 

result in larger performance differences 

among CRSs than that with the current 

standard seat assembly in the FMVSS 

No. 213 frontal impact test. 

Relatedly, while MGA did not provide 

specific comments on the proposed seat 

foam, MGA did state that there are few 

areas where FMVSS No. 213 and 

FMVSS No. 213a could be harmonized 

with regards to the seat cushion. 

Specifically, MGA stated that the cover 

material, foam insert, and overall 

assembly for the seat cushion could be 

harmonized, referencing FMVSS No. 

213’s leather type zippered cover over 

two softer pieces of foam, compared to 

the FMVSS No. 213a’s cloth type cover 

wrapped over a single piece of stiffer 

foam. Similarly, Graco requested that 

NHTSA consider the use of the same 

foam for frontal crash testing as used in 

side testing in any future improvements 

to FMVSS No. 213. 

An individual, Mr. Hauschild, 

commented that the seat foam needs to 

be representative of the current vehicle 

fleet, and added that research has 

shown that the foam of the FMVSS No. 

213 standard seat assembly for forwardfacing seat testing reacts differently than 

vehicle manufacturer seats and can 

influence the performance of the CRS 

(citing Tylko et al., 2013 137). Graco 

agreed with the use of standard seat 

foam that is more representative of 

current vehicles. 

Britax, JPMA, and Graco noted the 

difficulty to source the ECE R.44 foam. 

Britax stated that while it did not 

oppose the use of the ECE R.44 foam in 

principal, it strongly recommended that 

NHTSA survey the marketplace to better 

determine the availability of this type of 

foam for U.S. CRS manufacturers. Britax 

stated that the ECE R.44 foam is not 

readily available and to require its use 

for side impact testing may create a 

considerable hardship both from a cost 

and availability perspective. Britax 

stated that supplying consistent foam 

for FMVSS No. 213 standard seat 

assembly requirements has been a 

challenge for all CRS manufacturers 

who engage in internal sled testing. 

Britax explained that it has always been 

difficult to source cost effective supplies 

of foam that have the density, stiffness 

and qualities necessary for sled testing. 

Britax suggested that, since the seat 

cushion foam stiffness has minimal 

effect on dummy responses (as stated by 

the agency), it may be a reasonable 

solution to continue to permit the use of 

FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion foam. 

Graco explained that various parties use 

different types of foam due to the 

difficulty of sourcing the foam. 

Britax and Graco also commented on 

the importance of having sufficient foam 

specifications to source the foams. 

Britax stated that it would be essential 

to specify foam density and content. 

Graco requested that NHTSA provide 

clear seat foam drawings, material 

definition, indentation loaddisplacement (ILD) properties and a seat 

foam test methodology. 

JPMA commented that all members 

were concerned with viable competitive 

test equipment sourcing and availability 

and that it believed a single source and 

supply with no competition is 

untenable. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA’s research program to develop 

a standard seat cushion with similar 

characteristics of seat cushions in more 

recent vehicle models resulted in the 

development of a foam, referred to as 

the ‘‘NHTSA-Woodbridge’’ 138 seat 

cushion foam,139 that the agency 

proposed to use in the November 2, 

2020 NPRM to upgrade the frontal 

impact seat assembly. In that NPRM, 

NHTSA noted that after additional 

research and testing,140 the agency 

determined that the ECE R.44 and 

NPACS seat foam stiffness were not 

representative of the U.S. vehicle fleet 

(in both quasi-static and dynamic 

stiffness). Specifically, Figure 5 below 

shows that the ECE R.44 and NPACS 

foams were found to be stiffer than the 

vehicle fleet. The FMVSS No. 213 foam, 

tested on the standard seat assembly 

with a cover, is on the low end of the 

vehicle fleet rear seat stiffness. The 

NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion 

shows an average dynamic stiffness 

response compared to the vehicle rear 

seats sample. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39263 

141Louden & Wietholter (2019). 

142 ‘‘Foam Feasibility Study by National Center 

for Manufacturing Sciences’’ (NHTSA, June 2018). 

This document is in the docket for this final rule. 

143We submitted a memorandum summarizing 

this meeting to Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012. 

NHTSA is adopting the NHTSAWoodbridge seat cushion foam in the 

SISA because it has characteristics that 

best represent an average vehicle rear 

seat in the United States. In addition, 

the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion 

foam is easier to procure than the ECE 

R.44 foam proposed for use in the 2014 

NPRM. To simplify procurement of the 

desired seat cushion foam, NHTSA’s 

FMVSS No. 213 Side Impact Test 

Evaluation and Revision report sets 

forth characteristics of the NHTSAWoodbridge seat cushion foam.141

Further details of seat cushion 

characteristics are available in the 

drawings that are in the docket for this 

final rule. In response to Britax, Graco, 

and JPMA’s concerns about the ability 

to source cost-effective seat cushion 

foam, NHTSA launched a program to 

identify foam manufacturers and has 

found four sources that can provide the 

specified foam. These sources are 

available in the report, ‘‘Foam 

Feasibility Study,’’ 142 that is available 

in the docket for this final rule. 

In response to MGA’s comment that 

the seat cover material, foam insert, and 

overall assembly for the seat cushions 

could be harmonized between FMVSS 

No. 213 and 213a, the agency has taken 

steps to keep FMVSS No. 213a as 

harmonized as possible with the FMVSS 

No. 213 frontal seat assembly proposed 

on November 2, 2020. This includes the 

cover material, foam insert, and overall 

assembly of the seat cushions. NHTSA 

agrees that there are benefits to 

harmonizing FMVSS No. 213 and 213a 

to the extent possible, and that it makes 

sense that the seat assembly used to 

represent vehicle seats in the side crash 

test would be similar to the seat used in 

the frontal test. 

While CU, Dorel, Graco and 

UPPAbaby considered the ECE R.44 seat 

foam appropriate for side impact testing, 

NHTSA’s additional research shows that 

the ECE R.44 foam is stiffer than an 

average vehicle rear seat. The NHTSAWoodbridge foam is softer than the ECE 

R.44 foam and is a good representation 

of the average cushion stiffness of rear 

seats in the current vehicle fleet. This 

also accords with Mr. Hauschild and 

Graco’s suggestion to have a seat foam 

that is representative of the current 

vehicle fleet. 

In the November 2, 2020 NPRM 

upgrading the FMVSS No. 213 frontal 

impact seat assembly, NHTSA proposed 

the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion 

foam thickness of 4.0 ± 0.5 inches (101.6 

± 12.7 mm). JPMA and Graco expressed 

concern regarding the proposed 

tolerance of the seat cushion thickness 

in their comments to the November 2, 

2020 NPRM, noting that the proposed 

tolerance in the seat cushion thickness 

(±0.5 inches (±12.7 mm)) could result in 

increased test variability. JPMA 

reiterated its concerns regarding the 

proposed tolerance in the seat cushion 

foam thickness in a meeting with 

NHTSA on December 15, 2021,143 and 

provided sled test results showing 

variability in performance measures 

when tested with seat foam thicknesses 

ranging between 3.67 to 4.42 inches 

(93.2 to 112.3 mm). NHTSA agrees with 

the commenters on this issue and sees 

merit in reducing the tolerance of the 

seat cushion thickness to a level that 

would reduce variability in testing, 

while also ensuring availability of foam 

that meets specifications. After 

reviewing all available information, 

NHTSA is specifying a NHTSAWoodbridge seat cushion foam 

thickness of 4.0 ± 0.25 inches (101.6 ± 

6.35 mm). This change is reflected in 

the drawing package incorporated by 

reference by this final rule. 

Due to the change in seat cushions 

from the ECE R.44 foam (which is 127 

mm (5 inches) thick) to the NHTSAWoodbridge cushion (which is 101.6 

mm (4 inches) thick), NHTSA modified 

the SISA to account for changes to the 

seat cushion height. Using a thinner seat 

cushion lowered the position of the 

installed CRS on the seat assembly with 

respect to the door and armrest height, 

so the agency lowered the position of 

the door and armrest by about 25.4 mm 

(one inch) so that their relative position 

with respect to the installed CRS in the 

seat assembly are the same as that in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.008</GPH>
39264 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

144NHTSA has also adopted a requirement that 

CRSs be tested with a Type 2 seat belt (lap and 

shoulder belt) with the child restraint system’s top 

tether attached, if provided. 

145 Klinich et al. ‘‘Kinematics of the Q3s ATD in 

a Child Restraint under Far-Side Impact Loading, 

Paper #05–0262. 

2014 proposal (which is representative 

of the current vehicle fleet). This is 

discussed further in the section below 

on the SISA’s door and armrest 

thickness and stiffness. 

ii. Lower Anchorages and Top Tether 

Anchorages of the CRAS 

FMVSS No. 213 currently requires 

CRSs to be capable of being secured to 

a vehicle seat with the child restraint 

anchorage system (CRAS), and to meet 

the frontal crash requirements of the 

standard when using the CRAS. A CRAS 

consists of two lower anchorages and 

one upper tether anchorage. Each lower 

anchorage includes a rigid round rod or 

‘‘bar’’ onto which a hook, a jaw-like 

buckle or other connector can be 

snapped. The bars are located at the 

intersection of the vehicle seat cushion 

and seat back. The upper tether 

anchorage is a ring-like object to which 

the upper tether of a CRS can be 

attached. (FMVSS No. 213 also requires 

that CRSs must be capable of being 

secured to a vehicle seat using the 

vehicle’s seat belt system.) 

NHTSA proposed that CRSs covered 

in the proposal, other than beltpositioning seats, meet the side impact 

performance requirements when 

attached to the SISA with the lower 

attachments of the CRAS. NHTSA also 

proposed that forward-facing CRSs 

supplied with a top tether may have that 

top tether attached during testing if the 

written instructions accompanying the 

CRS instruct owners to attach the top 

tether when using the restraint. As 

discussed further in a section below, 

NHTSA has adopted the above 

provisions in the test procedure for this 

final rule.144 This section discusses the 

proposed specifications for the CRAS 

lower anchorages and top tether 

anchorages on the SISA, comments 

received, and the final specification of 

the anchorages. 

NHTSA proposed that the SISA be 

equipped with 2 inches (50.8 mm) wide 

CRAS lower anchorages that were 

symmetrically located on either side of 

the centerline of the simulated 

‘‘outboard seating position’’ of the SISA 

seat. NHTSA proposed that the top 

tether anchorage be located on the lower 

rear frame of the seat, similar to the 

typical location of a tether anchorage in 

captain’s seats in minivans. The exact 

locations of the proposed CRAS lower 

anchorages and tether anchorages were 

included in drawings posted to the 

docket for the NPRM. 

Comments Received 

UMTRI commented that the width of 

the lower anchor bars on the buck 

appeared to be 2 inches, rather than the 

1-inch minimum required in FMVSS 

No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage 

systems,’’ and most commonly used by 

vehicle manufacturers. UMTRI noted 

that in the NPRM, NHTSA stated that a 

European side impact test method was 

not suitable for testing U.S. products 

because it allows the connectors to 

slide. The commenter believed use of a 

2-inch wide anchor rather than a 1-inch 

wide anchor may have the same effect 

and be unrealistic relative to the U.S. 

market. 

MGA provided comments identifying 

potential interference of the SISA 

intruding door with the anchorage 

locations. First, MGA identified that 

because the lower anchor assembly 

protrudes through the seat bight, it was 

found to contact some CRS bases during 

their testing. In addition, MGA stated 

that the lower anchor assembly 

interferes with both the corner of the 

door fixture and the bottom of the seat 

cushion. MGA suggested that if the 

NPRM specifications for lower anchor 

location were desirable, the cushion 

foam design could be adjusted to 

accommodate the anchor, or the 

designed cutout in the seat foam could 

be made smaller and still provide 

clearance for the anchor assembly. MGA 

believed that a smaller cutout would 

provide the benefit of a larger area for 

the CRS to sit during the test. 

Agency Response 

Modifications to the SISA have 

resulted in some changes to the lower 

anchorages. First, in response to MGA’s 

comment, NHTSA updated the lower 

anchor location and cushion design and 

specifications to eliminate the lower 

anchor interference with CRS bases, 

corner of the door fixture, and seat 

foam. NHTSA also eliminated the foam 

cutouts, as discussed further below. In 

making these modifications, NHTSA 

also made the SISA lower anchorage 

locations consistent, as practically 

possible, with the lower anchorage 

locations in the proposed standard seat 

assembly of the frontal impact sled test. 

In addition, NHTSA decreased the 

anchorage width to 1.5 inches (38.1 

mm). This is wider than those generally 

found in vehicles, but is within the 60- 

mm maximum allowable anchorage 

width specified in FMVSS No. 225. 

Because the standard seat assembly is 

used repeatedly and the anchorages will 

be subjected to a crash environment 

repeatedly, the new lower anchorages 

were made more robust than the 

anchorages in a vehicle, and designed in 

a way that allows easy replacement 

when the anchorages are deformed. 

In response to UMTRI, while these 

wider anchorages may allow some 

movement of the CRS on the sliding seat 

assembly during the impact, the 

movement is slight and nowhere 

comparable to the European sliding 

anchors that allow 200–250 mm (7.87– 

9.84 inches) of movement. NHTSA has 

not measured the displacement of the 

CRS on the seat assembly during the 

impact event; however, in the 2014 

NPRM the agency compared the dummy 

kinematics and injury measures in the 

side impact sled test to that in a vehicle 

side impact test and found them to be 

similar. NHTSA believes the effect of 

this sliding due to the length of the 

anchorage is minimal. 

Comments Received 

SRN requested that the proposed 

tether anchor location be further 

reviewed because a tether anchor 

located lower on the back of the seat has 

been shown to be less effective in far 

side impact testing.145 SRN argued that 

using a high tether anchor position on 

the proposed SISA would have an 

additional benefit even if it were not 

required for compliance in near side 

crashes. SRN stated that this would 

simplify the process for manufacturers 

to conduct voluntary center and far-side 

impact testing using a SISA 

configuration that more closely 

resembles the real world. Similarly, 

UMTRI questioned why the top tether 

location on the SISA was located on the 

lower seat back, instead of on a location 

representing the rear filler panel, as 

with the FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact 

standard seat assembly. UMTRI also 

argued that top tether anchorages 

located on the rear filler panel is more 

commonly found in vehicles. MGA 

commented that the tether placement 

for FMVSS No. 213a is located in a 

position that most closely resembles the 

floor of a vehicle, while the tether 

anchor location for current FMVSS No. 

213 is in a location that most closely 

resembles a top shelf. MGA stated that 

while tether placement differs in all 

vehicle makes and models, FMVSS No. 

213 and 213a should have similar 

locations for the tethers. 

Agency Response 

This final rule adopts the proposed 

location of the tether anchorage. As 

discussed above, the SISA tether 

anchorage is located on the lower rear 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39265 

146While there may be no effect of tether use and/ 

or tether anchorage position in a near side impact, 

use of a tether may improve the repeatability of the 

test. Also, there may be some effect of tether use 

in center and far-side impact environments, which 

would be relevant to researchers conducting center 

and/or far-side impact testing. Such testing would 

likely involve changing the SISA and door assembly 

to resemble a center/far-side environment, and 

adapting the SISA in such a manner would require 

substantial changes to the sliding seat (i.e. making 

it wider to represent the center and/or the farseating positions in a rear seat) and/or to the door 

assembly to position the door intrusion at an 

appropriate distance for a center/far-side impact 

environment. Entities engaged in such 

modifications can also consider changing the 

location of the tether as part of their evaluation. 

147 85 FR 69388, supra. 

148The 2012 Vehicle Rear Seat Study measured 

the vehicles’ seat geometry and anchorage locations 

using a seat geometry measuring fixture (SGMF). 

The SGMF consisted of two wood blocks (600 mm 

x 88 mm x 38 mm) and a 76 mm (3 inches) hinge. 

To make the rear seat geometry measurements, the 

SGMF was positioned on the centerline of each rear 

seat position. Point A, which corresponds to the 

hinge location of the SGMF, was the reference point 

for all measurements. 

frame of the seat and is similar to the 

typical location of a tether anchorage in 

captains’ seats in minivans. The 2012 

Vehicle Rear Seat Study found that 45% 

of the tether anchors were found on the 

rear shelf location, 40% were found on 

the seat back, 10% were located on the 

roof, and 5% in other locations. While 

a tether anchorage on the rear shelf was 

found more frequently in the vehicle 

survey, the agency decided to locate it 

on the seat back for several reasons. 

First, NHTSA considered that tether use 

had no substantive effect on CRS 

performance in the near-side impact 

test, because the simulated door impacts 

the CRS before the tether has significant 

engagement.146 Further, a longer 

distance to the tether anchorage (as 

found in a seat back tether anchorage 

position compared to one located in the 

rear shelf) in a frontal test may result 

overall in a more stringent test as the 

tether may experience more webbing 

elongations when attached to the seat 

back vs. the rear shelf. Also, NHTSA is 

interested in keeping the frontal and 

side impact standard seat assemblies as 

similar as possible, and agrees with 

MGA that the FMVSS No. 213 and 213a 

seat assemblies have similar locations 

for the tethers. Therefore, the agency 

decided to keep the tether anchorage 

locations in a seat back position in both 

seat assemblies. 

The lower anchorage locations from 

the 2012 Vehicle Rear Seat Survey, the 

proposed child restraint anchorage 

locations to the frontal impact test seat 

assembly,147 and the updated side 

impact assembly are shown in Table 16. 

TABLE 16—LOWER ANCHORS AND TETHER ANCHOR LOCATIONS FROM (1) THE 24 VEHICLE SURVEY, (2) THE PROPOSED

FMVSS NO. 213 FRONTAL IMPACT SLED TEST STANDARD SEAT ASSEMBLY, AND (3) THE FINAL SIDE IMPACT SEAT

ASSEMBLY CONFIGURATION (ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE IN MILLIMETERS FROM POINT A 148 OF THE SEAT GEOMETRY

MEASURING FIXTURE (SGMF)) 

Average from vehicle survey Proposed frontal test seat assembly 

(2020) 

Final side test 

seat assembly 

Lower Anchors: 

Aft ..................................................... 100 ± 21 .................................................. 58 ............................................................. 60 

Lateral ............................................... 137 ± 29 .................................................. 140 ........................................................... 141 

Vertical (¥) Below point A ............... ¥12 ± 24 ................................................. ¥38 ......................................................... ¥39 

Tether Anchors (Seat Back Position): .

Aft ..................................................... 280 ± 88 .................................................. 330 ........................................................... 324 

Lateral ............................................... 0 ± 44 ...................................................... 0 ............................................................... 5 

Vertical (¥) Below point A ............... 140 ± 281 ................................................ 133 ........................................................... 133 

UMTRI commented that to allow 

access to lower anchors, there is a large 

gap between the bottom of the seatback 

foam and the top of the seat cushion 

foam on the seat buck. UMTRI 

explained that when used with some 

rear-facing child restraints, the profile of 

the restraint surface that rests against 

the seatback may slip into the gap in an 

unrealistic manner. UMTRI added that 

in the ECE buck, there is space between 

the two foam segments, but the seatback 

foam is angled so there is some foam in 

the gap. UMTRI stated that this provides 

a more realistic seatback contour than 

the proposed SISA buck design. 

By way of background, NHTSA 

designed the side and frontal sled test 

seat assemblies taking into 

consideration the current difficulties to 

install and to measure installation 

tensions (seat belt and lower anchor). 

The updated design has proven to allow 

for easier installation in the buck and in 

some cases reduced the difficulty of 

measuring installation tension. During 

extensive side and frontal impact testing 

with the updated seat assemblies that 

have a gap in the seat bight (between the 

seat back and seat cushion foam), the 

agency has not seen any issues in CRS 

placement or during testing as 

mentioned by UMTRI. Among more 

than 200 tests conducted on the side 

impact sled system with rear-facing and 

forward-facing CRSs, NHTSA did not 

experience any issues with the seat 

bight gap. Accordingly, this final rule 

does not make the requested change. 

2. Door Characteristics 

i. Beltline Height 

NHTSA proposed a beltline (window 

sill) height of 500 mm (19.6 inches) for 

the SISA, based on a survey of 24 

vehicles. Although the proposed 

beltline height (500 mm) was slightly 

higher than the average (494 mm) and 

median (489 mm) beltline heights of the 

surveyed vehicles, HIC values were 

generally higher at the higher beltline 

height. NHTSA proposed the higher 

value to ensure that the side impact test 

was sufficiently stringent to account for 

vehicle beltlines higher than the average 

value. Child restraint systems meeting 

the HIC15 requirement when tested 

against the 500 mm beltline will likely 

provide sufficient crash protection in 

vehicles with a lower beltline, but the 

opposite may not be valid. CRSs tested 

against a lower belt line might not 

adequately protect children in vehicles 

with the higher (500 mm) beltline 

design. 

Comment Received 

CU stated that the NPRM’s fleet study 

of seats seemed to have been conducted 

at the 479 mm (18.8 inches) height and 

that even at that lower height, 7 of 12 

forward-facing CRSs had HIC15 values 

in excess of the proposed 570 limit. CU 

stated, ‘‘Though the five seats with the 

lower HIC15 had a notable margin 

between their values and the 570 limit, 

it may be an expectation that at the 

higher beltline height more CRSs would 

approach or exceed that limit.’’ CU 

added that the higher beltline may also 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39266 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

149 Id. at 4593. 

150Sullivan, L., Louden, A., Echemendia, C., 

‘‘Child Restraint Side Impact Test Procedure 

Development’’ (December 2013), available at Docket 

No. NHTSA–2014–0012–0002 [hereinafter Sullivan 

et al. (2013)]. 

151Sullivan et al. (2011). 

152Sullivan et al. (2013). 

153Link to foam manufacturer’s terminology: 

https://www.customfoaminc.com/Custom

FoamProductsSpecSheet.pdf. 

154NHTSA–2014–0012–0042, at pg. 9. 

produce a larger differential when 

compared to the performance of seats in 

the sled/vehicle test comparison. 

Agency Response 

Contrary to CU’s understanding, our 

fleet testing of forward-facing CRSs 

discussed in the NPRM 149 were 

performed at the higher beltline height 

(500 mm or 19.6 inches), not the lower 

beltline height (479 mm or 18.8 inches) 

that was first used during development. 

Tested against the 500 mm beltline 

height, the fleet test results of forwardfacing CRSs with the Q3s dummy 

showed that 7 out of 12 CRSs exceeded 

HIC15 injury limits and that 3 out 12 

tests resulted in chest deflection 

exceeding the proposed limit (23 mm). 

Fleet tests of rear-facing CRSs tested 

with the Q3s showed that 3 out of 5 

exceeded HIC15 injury limits and 2 out 

of 5 exceed chest deflection injury 

limits. For the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, 

the results of the fleet tests showed that 

the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 

570 in 3 of the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, 

and chest deflection greater than 23 mm 

in 2 of the 5 tests. The Q3s measured 

both HIC15 greater than 570 and chest 

deflection greater than 23 mm in 1 of 

the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested. 

Tests with the 12-month-old CRABI 

dummy in rear-facing CRSs showed that 

the different beltline heights did not 

affect dummy responses. NHTSA 

believes this was due to the fact that 

most rear-facing CRSs designed for 

smaller children position the head 

lower (mostly below the beltline) and 

therefore the increased height (at 500 

mm or 19.6 inches) did not affect the 

outcome. For this reason, fleet testing 

with the 12-month-old CRABI dummy 

in rear-facing CRSs did include tests 

done at 500 mm and at 479 mm. Results 

of rear-facing CRSs using the 12-monthold CRABI dummy showed that only 1 

out of 12 models had head to door 

contact. NHTSA believes the tests 

selected for the fleet testing and cost 

benefit analysis in the NPRM were 

appropriate and accounted for the 

increased stringency of the higher 

beltline. Accordingly, NHTSA is not 

making any changes to the SISA beltline 

height from that proposed in the NPRM. 

ii. Door and Armrest Thickness and 

Stiffness 

NHTSA proposed that the door panel/ 

armrest configuration for the SISA 

would consist of 51 mm (2 inches) 

‘‘average’’ stiffness foam padding (Dow 

Ethafoam 220) on the door and a 64 mm 

(2.5 inches) ‘‘stiff’’ foam (United Foam 

#4) for the armrest. NHTSA determined 

that this door panel/armrest 

configuration had similar characteristics 

to those observed in Free Motion 

Headform (FMH) impact testing of eight 

vehicle doors. Those tests are described 

in detail in NHTSA’s 2013 report, Child 

Restraint Side Impact Test Procedure 

Development.150 The proposed armrest 

thickness also fell within the range of 

vehicle armrests measured in the 2012 

Vehicle Rear Seat Study. 

In addition to the representativeness 

of that door panel/armrest configuration 

of average rear seat characteristics, 

NHTSA stated that the proposed door 

padding (Ethafoam 220) was of lower 

cost compared to the other foams, was 

relatively easy to obtain commercially, 

and was relatively fungible, in that other 

materials with similar physical 

properties could easily be used in its 

place. NHTSA also cited to results of its 

sensitivity analyses that showed door 

stiffness had little effect on dummy 

performance.151

Discussion of Comments 

CU commented that the FMVSS No. 

201 test procedure that NHTSA used as 

a basis for determining average door and 

armrest stiffness was also utilized by CU 

in its revised CRS testing protocol, and 

therefore CU supported that aspect of 

the NPRM. ARCCA commented that 

while it did not have data to confirm or 

deny the appropriateness of the door/ 

armrest configuration, it was unaware of 

any rear door configuration with the 

level of padding specified for the 

proposed SISA. ARCCA stated that, 

accordingly, the HIC values acquired 

from head to door impact would likely 

underpredict the severity of the head 

impact. 

NHTSA disagrees with ARCCA. The 

stiffness of the simulated door in the 

SISA is representative of the stiffness 

found in vehicles, which NHTSA 

determined using the FMH testing 

described above. The stiffness of the 51 

mm thick door padding includes the 

combined stiffness of the door assembly 

(inner and outer panel of the door) and 

the interior door padding. The relevant 

factor for the test is door stiffness and 

not the thickness of the door padding. 

Details of the development of the door 

characteristics can be found in the 

‘‘Child Restraint Side Impact Test 

Procedure Development’’ technical 

report.152

Both JPMA and MGA noted a 

discrepancy between the NPRM 

specification for door foam thickness 

(51 mm) and the drawing package 

specifications (55 mm). JPMA stated 

that this difference in foam thickness is 

significant because ‘‘the NPRM includes 

set-up distances from the face of the 

door panel to the face of honeycomb 

material and from the face of the 

honeycomb material to the centerline of 

the sliding seat [sic].’’ JPMA explained 

that the thickness of the foam is thus an 

important part of these set-up 

relationships and needs to be the same 

in the final rule and the drawing 

package to help ensure consistent test 

results between test facilities. MGA 

stated that it believed the error was on 

the part of the drawings, as 55 mm (2.2 

inches) foam is not commonly available. 

NHTSA agrees with MGA that there 

are inconsistencies in the door foam 

thickness specification between the 

NPRM and the drawing package. The 

door foam was procured as a 2-inch 

nominal thickness foam plank. 

According to the foam manufacturer’s 

terminology,153 an X-inch nominal foam 

thickness means that the foam plank is 

gauged at a desired thickness of X + 1⁄4

inches. Therefore, a 2-inch nominal 

thickness foam plank has a thickness of 

57 mm (2.25 inches). Accordingly, 

NHTSA has changed the door foam 

thickness measurements in Drawing 

2921–501 from 55 mm (2.2 inches) to 57 

mm (2.25 inches). The specified foam, 

with a thickness of 57 mm 

(corresponding to a 2-inch nominal 

foam thickness) is commonly available. 

Graco made several recommendations 

relating to the door foam’s 

characteristics over time and extended 

use. The commenter recommended 

replacement of the door foam only after 

significant structural damage. It 

recommended that NHTSA provide a 

standardized method for measuring the 

compression properties of the door 

foam. Graco provided developmental 

test results showing that maximum 

HIC15 and chest deflection results occur 

at the time of contact with the door 

structure.154 Graco suggested that 

NHTSA should confirm that 

performance after extended use does not 

change results. Graco explained that 

currently the foam types are described 

as ‘‘Soft’’ (United Foam # 2), ‘‘average’’ 

(Dow Ethafoam 220), and ‘‘stiff’’ (United 

Foam # 4) foam. Graco suggested that, 

if these descriptions can also include a 

method for confirming compression 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39267 

155The research test procedure developed at 

VRTC specifies use of a new foam for each test. This 

test procedure is in the following report in the 

docket of this final rule: Louden, A., & Wietholter, 

K. (March 2022). FMVSS No. 213 side impact test 

evaluation and revision (Report No. DOT HS 812 

791). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (hereinafter Louden & 

Wietholter (20)). 

156The NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance FMVSS No. 213a side impact test 

procedure can be found at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

vehicle-manufacturers/test-procedures. 

157 85 FR 69388, supra. 

158Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

159See Louden & Wietholter (2022). See also 

Brelin-Fornari, J., ‘‘Final Report on CRS Side Impact 

Study of Repeatability and Reproducibility using a 

Deceleration Sled,’’ July 2017. 

160Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

properties after extended use, crash test 

facilities can confirm that injury metric 

results are not affected by changes in 

foam properties. 

MGA reported that they did not 

replace the door and armrest foam 

between tests (approximately 40 tests). 

MGA used a single piece for the door 

and two pieces for the armrest attached 

with spray adhesive. MGA reported that 

the foam assembly did not show any 

physical degradation nor change in 

thickness during their test series. 

During NHTSA’s research testing, the 

door foam was reused for 2 to 3 tests as 

no extensive damage was seen during 

initial tests, while the armrest foams 

were used only once as they presented 

indentations from the impact of a single 

test. Since there is no method to retest 

for the compression properties of the 

door and armrest foams after use, 

NHTSA frequently replaces these 

foams.155 How frequently NHTSA will 

replace these foams in its compliance 

testing program will be indicated in 

NHTSA’s compliance test procedure for 

FMVSS No. 213a that will be included 

on NHTSA’s website.156

3. Honeycomb 

As discussed above, the purpose of 

honeycomb on the door structure is to 

contact the sliding seat in a way that the 

desired sliding seat acceleration is 

achieved. NHTSA included honeycomb 

specifications in the parts list drawings 

docketed with the NPRM. The drawing 

specified Aluminum—6061 (AL 6061) 

as the material used, the honeycomb 

cell size, foil gage, and density, and 

noted that an equivalent density could 

be used. The drawings also specified the 

dimensions of the honeycomb used in 

the test sled. 

JPMA was concerned that the costs of 

running the proposed side impact test 

would be higher than running an 

FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact test 

because the honeycomb material could 

only be obtained from one supplier and 

that the limited availability drove up 

demand and price. JPMA added that the 

honeycomb material could only be used 

once and then must be discarded. JPMA 

recommended NHTSA specify the type 

of material that could be used and the 

amount of pre-crush that should be 

done to allow for technological 

advances in this area without restricting 

potential suppliers. 

JPMA also commented that testing by 

its members using honeycomb material 

with and without pre-crush confirmed 

that the performance of the honeycomb 

varied. JPMA added that the precrushed material produced lower peak 

Gs and a lengthened, smoother 

deceleration pulse. JPMA believed that 

even if the final rule specified precrushed honeycomb, it also must 

include parameters for controlling the 

amount of crush to be obtained and 

whether the pre-crushed surface of the 

honeycomb material should face the 

sliding seat. 

Agency Response 

As discussed above, for the final 

rule’s test procedure, NHTSA made 

changes to the sliding seat structure to 

reduce vibrations that were affecting 

accelerometer readings and to align the 

seat specifications with that of the 

proposed FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact 

test.157 These modifications added 

weight to the sliding seat structure, and 

the added weight of the seat made the 

sliding seat acceleration pulse fall to the 

lower bound of the proposed 

acceleration corridor of the sliding seat 

assembly. Therefore, the specifications 

for the honeycomb needed revisions to 

obtain the average acceleration pulse in 

the sled tests presented in the NPRM. 

The agency worked with Plascore, the 

manufacturer of the honeycomb used in 

the proposed SISA, to select a 

honeycomb for testing purposes that 

would modify the sliding seat response 

and bring the acceleration pulse within 

the proposed corridor. NHTSA also 

worked to develop appropriate 

specifications for the selected 

honeycomb material. The final 

honeycomb specifications differ in cell 

size and crush strength from the 

proposed specifications. The final 

honeycomb specifications are detailed 

in a report entitled, ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 

Side Impact Test Evaluation and 

Revision,’’ 158 in addition to the drawing 

package accompanying this final rule. 

In response to JPMA’s concerns that 

the honeycomb could only be obtained 

from one supplier, while the agency did 

not test with honeycomb from different 

sources, the agency notes that Cellbond 

is another manufacturer that can 

provide similar honeycomb material. In 

addition, if manufacturers are 

concerned about the cost of replacing 

the honeycomb, they can develop their 

own decelerating system (e.g. a 

hydraulic decelerator) that provides a 

sliding seat acceleration profile within 

the required acceleration corridor. The 

honeycomb specification is provided to 

advise manufacturers how NHTSA’s 

compliance tests will be performed, but 

manufacturers are not required to use 

the procedures. NHTSA also notes that 

the size and crush strength of the 

honeycomb can help tune the system to 

achieve the desired accelerations within 

the corridor.159

The agency also tested some precrushed honeycomb but found, as JPMA 

had noted in its comments regarding 

members’ testing, that the acceleration 

pulse peak was reduced and the length 

of the pulse extended outside the 

proposed acceleration corridor.160 As 

NHTSA found that it was possible to 

obtain an acceleration pulse of the 

sliding seat that was within the 

specified corridors using honeycomb 

that was not pre-crushed, NHTSA did 

not further consider the use of the precrushed honeycomb. However, as 

discussed above, the standard adopted 

by this final rule does not prohibit the 

use of pre-crushed honeycomb. Test 

facilities and manufacturers may choose 

any type of honeycomb as long as the 

sliding seat acceleration pulse is within 

the specified corridors. They may even 

use an entirely different apparatus (e.g., 

a hydraulic decelerator, which does not 

require honeycomb) as long as their 

child restraints meet FMVSS No. 213a 

when tested by NHTSA in the manner 

specified in the standard. 

4. SISA Technical Drawings 

The NPRM proposed to incorporate 

by reference a set of technical drawings 

of the SISA into FMVSS No. 213a. The 

technical drawings were placed in the 

docket. Several commenters provided 

feedback on the drawings, pointing out 

errors such as minor discrepancies 

between the drawing and the proposed 

regulatory text, places where clarity was 

requested, and suggestions for 

additional drawings or parts 

specifications for the SISA. NHTSA has 

provided additional explanation in the 

discussion below, and in some cases, 

has made minor corrections or revisions 

to the drawings to correct or clarify the 

material. These changes simply 

improved the quality of the drawings 

and will have no effect on the outcomes 

of the test. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39268 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

161This is consistent with the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 213. Load legs are not permitted to 

meet the minimum threshold requirements of 

FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213a because the agency is 

concerned that caregivers will not use the load leg. 

Manufacturers may provide a load leg to 

supplement performance beyond the threshold 

needed to meet the FMVSSs, but the CRS must meet 

the requirements of the FMVSSs without use of the 

load leg. 

162As discussed below, NHTSA’s drawing 

package contains drawings that are appropriate for 

an acceleration-type test. NHTSA did test on a 

deceleration-type sled in the Kettering study that 

used longer rails, because the deceleration-type sled 

needs a longer distance to ramp up to the desired 

speed. 

163Brelin-Fornarni, J., ‘‘Development of NHTSA’s 

Side Impact Test Procedure for Child Restraint 

Systems Using a Deceleration Sled: Final Report, 

Part 1. April 2014. Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811994-sideimpcttestchrestraintdecelsled_pt1.pdf. 

Corrections and Revisions to the 

Technical Drawings 

MGA suggested that the agency 

incorporate drawings or reference 

geometry for a D-ring and Type 2 (3 

point) seat belt anchors. MGA stated 

that currently different test facilities use 

different methods for locating and 

attaching belt anchors, which the 

commenter believes has been a source of 

concern with FMVSS No. 213. MGA 

stated that ECE R. 44 Annex 13, p. 149– 

151 (dated February 2008), specifies 

geometry and may be helpful as a 

reference as the proposed SISA has 

similar geometry to the ECE R44 seat 

assembly. In response, NHTSA has 

included drawings for the D-ring and 

Type 2 belt anchors in the final drawing 

package. 

MGA suggested removing the CRAS 

lower anchorages and belt anchor 

assembly from inside the bottom 

cushion to allow a complete bottom 

cushion with no cutouts. MGA stated 

that this would provide the ability to 

have a more consistent and 

representative seating surface. In 

response, as discussed above, the final 

foam design does not have cutouts, and 

the anchorages location and design have 

been updated to be more accessible and 

durable. The specific change MGA 

suggested has not been made. 

MGA commented that although load 

legs are not currently recognized in 

FMVSS No. 213, some sort of platform 

in a specified location on the SISA may 

help aid their introduction into FMVSS 

No. 213 in the future. Relatedly, CU 

commented that during its evaluation of 

infant seat models equipped with load 

legs, there was some interaction 

between the load leg and the mounting 

hardware on the sled ‘‘floor’’ as well as 

front camera hardware. CU suggested 

that elimination of hardware or test 

components in the area directly ahead 

of the test bench may be warranted in 

updates or final rule changes to limit 

possible interaction with the load leg of 

rear-facing seats. 

In response, load legs cannot be used 

in the side impact configuration as the 

sliding seat is on rails connected to the 

base plate/floor. The floor does not 

move during the test as the seat 

assembly slides along the rails. Further, 

NHTSA will not use load legs in the 

FMVSS No. 213a compliance test. 

Under FMVSS No. 213a, a top tether 

will be attached (in forward-facing CRSs 

that provide one), but supplementary 

devices will not be used.161 If 

manufacturers want this option for 

testing CRSs for purposes other than 

compliance testing, they can design a 

SISA with a floor that can be used for 

supporting load legs. MGA suggested 

that NHTSA define the overall length of 

the equipment (base plate, rails, rail 

mounting plate) as a reference 

dimension. MGA stated that depending 

on the sled system, equipment, and 

input used, more or less ramp up room 

may be required to perform the test. 

MGA also stated that allowing 

additional length would provide the 

opportunity to test to more severe 

inputs. NHTSA declines to make this 

change. If manufacturers want to test at 

different settings, they can vary the rail 

length as convenient in their system.162

Regarding the bench seat panel 

assembly, MGA commented that the 

attachment method for holding the 

‘‘Bench Seat Panel’’ and ‘‘Bench Seat 

Back Panel’’ (Drawings 2921–360 and 

2921–380) to the ‘‘Bench Seat 

Assembly’’ (Drawing 2921–310) were 

not durable enough. MGA said that the 

attachment bolts thread into thin steel 

and stripped out very quickly, and that 

MGA accordingly replaced most of these 

fasteners with thru-bolts. MGA 

suggested thicker wall tubing, a 

captured nut, or other means for 

attaching to the bench (seat assembly). 

Updates to the seat assembly design 

make MGA’s suggestions to drawings 

2921–360 and 2921–380 moot as 

drawings 2921–360 and 2921–380 

drawings were removed. Also, the seat 

back and seat pan design were changed 

in the updated 2921–310 drawings, 

making MGA suggestions no longer 

relevant. 

Regarding the tether anchor mount, 

MGA commented that Drawing 2921– 

340, ‘‘Top Tether Anchor,’’ has a single 

mounting bolt to attach the mount to the 

seat frame, which allows the tether 

anchor to rotate during testing. MGA 

suggested that it may be desirable to 

mount the tether anchor with a second 

bolt to prevent this pivot motion. 

NHTSA agrees and has modified the 

tether anchor design to prevent rotation 

and so it can be replaceable in case of 

bending during testing. The new tether 

anchor design consists of an easily 

replaceable bolt that goes through two 

small wings attached to the seat 

assembly, with two bolts to prevent 

rotation. The replaceable bolt serves as 

the tether anchor in the new design. 

Regarding Drawings 2921–370 and 

2921–390 ‘‘Bottom Seat Cushion Ass’y’’ 

and ‘‘Seat Back Cushion Ass’y,’’ MGA 

stated these drawings are inconsistent 

on the width of the seating surface. The 

bottom cushion specifies a width of 695 

mm (27.4 inches) while the back 

cushion specifies a width of 670 mm 

(26.4 inches). In response, NHTSA 

updated drawings 2921–370 ‘‘Seat Pan 

Cushion Ass’y’’ and 2921–390 ‘‘Seat 

Back Cushion Ass’y’’ and they are now 

the same dimensions 711 mm (28 

inches) width. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–321 ‘‘Bench 

Top Anchor Brace Plate,’’ MGA 

commented that it believed this drawing 

is obsolete. NHTSA agrees and the brace 

plate has been eliminated from the 

drawings. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–100 ‘‘Base 

Plate,’’ MGA had four suggestions. First, 

change the M10 tapped holes for rail 

base plate mounting to M12. The 

through holes in rail mount plate 

(Drawing 2921–251) and end stop 

‘‘Bumper Base’’ and ‘‘Bumper Base 

Extension’’ (Drawings 2921–411 and 

2921–412) are 0.531 inches and 0.500 

inches which are too big for an M10 

bolt. 

Second, allow the option to use 

aluminum to reduce the weight of the 

setup. Third, remove thru holes for 

attaching to the VRTC sled; and fourth, 

make the overall rail length for reference 

only to allow changes for different sled 

facilities. In response, NHTSA switched 

the holes to M12; allowed the option to 

use aluminum to reduce the weight of 

the setup; and removed all extra thru 

holes. In regards to the last suggestion, 

the drawing package contains drawings 

for an acceleration-type sled test. If 

manufacturers want to test at different 

settings or use different types of sled 

systems, they can vary the rail length as 

needed. The Kettering study 163 of a 

deceleration-type sled used longer rails 

than the drawings as the deceleration 

sled needs a longer distance to ramp up 

to the desired speed. 

MGA stated Assembly 2921–210 

‘‘Impactor Stop Assembly,’’ can be 

changed from referencing two bolt 

together weldments to a single 

weldment by changing (1) Assembly 

2921–220 ‘‘Impactor Stop Frame 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39269 

164 ‘‘Foam Feasibility Study by National Center 

for Manufacturing Sciences’’ (NHTSA, June 2018). 

This document is in the docket for this final rule. 165Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

Assembly’’ to remove holes in the plate 

for Drawing 2921–221 and eliminating 

items 2921–224, 2921–225, 2921–226; 

and (2) Assembly 2921–230, 

‘‘Honeycomb Frame Assembly,’’ by 

eliminating item 2921–231, extending 

item 2921–232 by 0.25 inches and 

extending item 2921–235 by 6 inches. In 

response, NHTSA removed the holes in 

plate for part 2921–221. Drawings 2921– 

(225–226) were removed. Drawing 

2921–224 was not removed as it is 

referenced in the drawing package. Item 

2921–231 was removed. The dimension 

was increased by 0.28 inches (rather 

than 0.25 inches as suggested) to 

correctly depict the length in drawing 

2921–232 (from 136.5 mm or 5.38 

inches to 143.7 mm or 5.66 inches). The 

dimension was extended in drawing 

2921–235 by 6 inches, as suggested. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–241–1 

‘‘Impactor Frame Tube 1,’’ MGA 

suggesting changing the length of the 

frame tube from 30.80 inches to 29.50 

inches to match the height of the 

impactor frame and to match part 2921– 

241–2. In response, NHTSA changed the 

length of the impactor frame tubes, to 

depict the correct length of 29.50 

inches, as suggested. Drawing 2921– 

241–1 has been removed and replaced 

by –241–2. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–251 ‘‘Rail 

Mtg. Plate,’’ MGA suggesting changing 

the width from 5.91 inches to 6 inches, 

as a 6-inch plate is commonly available, 

and the change reduces machining 

processes. In response, NHTSA changed 

the width of the plate to 6 inches. 

Regarding Assembly 2921–311–9 

‘‘Bench Frame Tube #9 Assy.,’’ MGA 

suggested removing notches and extra 

pieces as these were believed to be 

obsolete. NHTSA has removed 

Assembly 2921–311–9, so this 

suggestion is no longer applicable. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–313 ‘‘Bench 

Bearing Support Plate,’’ MGA had three 

suggestions: change overall length from 

24.41 inches to 24.56 inches, as the 

current length does not fit the size of the 

SISA; change the width from 4.016 

inches to 4.00 inches, as four-inch 

plates are readily available; and change 

slots to holes, if the purpose of slots is 

unnecessary. NHTSA agrees and has 

made these suggested changes. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–314 ‘‘Bench 

Frame Center Stiffener Plate,’’ MGA 

commented that this plate appeared to 

be obsolete, and recommended removal 

of the drawing. NHTSA did not remove 

the plate from the drawing package, 

because the plate is still in use. The 

stiffener plate helps overall buck 

durability. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–322 ‘‘Bench 

Stop Plate,’’ MGA suggested changing 

the plate with from 5.91 inches to 6 

inches, as six-inch plates are readily 

available. MGA also questioned the 

purpose of holes in the plate, and 

requested the agency remove the holes 

if they were obsolete. In response, 

NHTSA changed the dimension of the 

plate in the drawing as suggested. The 

holes in the plate are necessary, as holes 

need to be present for the honeycomb to 

provide the correct response (air flow 

through the honeycomb) for correct 

deceleration. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–331 ‘‘Light 

Trap Vane,’’ MGA suggested removing 

the drawing from the package, as 

depending on the model of light trap 

used to measure velocity, different sized 

vanes or flags may be necessary. NHTSA 

agrees, and the drawing has been 

removed. 

Regarding Drawings 2921–372 ‘‘Seat 

Bottom Cushion’’ and 2921–392 ‘‘Seat 

Back Cushion,’’ MGA had three 

comments: first, MGA noted that the 

cutouts to allow clearance for the belt 

anchors were not the same size for the 

left and right side, and asked if this was 

intentional (as drawings 2921–371–1 

‘‘Seat Bottom Cushion Mtg. Plate’’ and 

2921–360 ‘‘Bench Seat Panel’’ have the 

same size cutouts for the left and right 

side). Next, MGA stated the location of 

the cutouts does not match the location 

on Drawing 2921–371–1 ‘‘Seat Bottom 

Cushion Mtg. Plate’’ and the 

misalignment can be seen in assembly 

2921–370 ‘‘Seat Bottom Cushion Assy.’’ 

Finally, MGA stated that the specified 

material has proven difficult, if not 

impossible to obtain. MGA suggested 

NHTSA specify a more commonly 

available polyurethane foam block with 

a specified density and force/deflection. 

In response, as discussed above, NHTSA 

modified the SISA so that the final foam 

design does not have cutouts. In 

addition, as discussed above, NHTSA 

has identified several manufacturers 

that could produce the specified foam. 

This is discussed in more detail in the 

Foam Feasibility Study included in the 

docket with this final rule.164

Regarding Drawings 2921–373 

‘‘Bottom Seat Cushion Cover’’ and 

2921–393 ‘‘Seat Back Cushion Cover,’’ 

MGA suggested NHTSA specify a more 

commonly available material such as 

‘‘cotton duck,’’ which can be purchased 

from a variety of vendors. MGA also 

suggested NHTSA specify a detailed 

method of wrapping and attaching the 

cover material. In response, NHTSA 

added details for the cover material to 

the drawing package. The current 

wrapping method is specified in the 

report, ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side Impact 

Test Evaluation and Revision’’ 165 and 

will be available in the compliance test 

procedure (TP) placed on NHTSA’s 

website. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–391–1 ‘‘Seat 

Back Cushion Mtg. Plate,’’ MGA 

suggested reducing the thru hole size 

from 0.328 inches to 0.281 inches for 

specified 1/4–28 hardware. In response, 

NHTSA found the suggested 0.281 inch 

through hole was too small to slide 

down the bolts and lay flush with the 

seat back pan. Accordingly, the 

dimension was changed to 0.34 inch, 

which corresponds to a 11/32 standard 

bit size. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–396 ‘‘Rail 

Bearing Mount Plate,’’ MGA suggested 

changing the overall length from 30.98 

inches to 31 inches as it currently does 

not match Drawing 2921–397, ‘‘AntiRebound Slider Base,’’ which attaches 

to it. MGA also suggested changing the 

thickness from 0.35 inch to 0.375 inch 

(3⁄8 inch), as a 3⁄8 inch plate is referenced 

as the material, and reducing the 

thickness to 0.35 inch through a 

machining process is very time 

consuming and costly. In response, 

NHTSA changed the overall length 

dimension to 31 inches as suggested, 

and the thickness was updated to 3⁄8

inch in the drawing package. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–404, ‘‘AntiRebound Fixture Stop Plate,’’ MGA 

stated that, currently, the plate has a 

taper and is not a constant thickness, 

and questioned whether this was 

intentional or a drawing error. MGA 

stated that if this is an error, it should 

be corrected to a constant 0.75 inch 

thickness. MGA also stated that the 

Countersink is currently drawn for 1⁄2

inch hardware, but 5⁄8 inch hardware is 

specified in drawing 2921–400, ‘‘AntiRebound Fixture Ass’y.’’ In response, 

NHTSA changed the hanged plate 

thickness to a constant 0.75 inch, as 

suggested. The drawings were also 

changed to have a 5⁄8 inch countersink. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–411 

‘‘Bumper Base,’’ MGA stated that the 

thru holes for attaching to the base plate 

are not dimensioned in the drawings, 

and should be to make the drawing fully 

defined. In response, NHTSA added 

dimensions so that the drawing is fully 

defined. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–501 

‘‘Impactor Door Foam,’’ MGA had three 

comments: first, the thickness is drawn 

to 2.2 inches but in the proposed 

regulatory text a thickness of 2 inches is 

referenced; second, the drawing is not 

fully constrained, as the two angles are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39270 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

166See Louden & Wietholter (2022) for 

documentation on drag pull/push force which may 

predict if bearings have high friction. The increase 

in pull/push force may also be attributed to other 

causes explained in the report. 

167Figures illustrating the Type 2 seat belt testing 

showing no interference with the door are docketed 

with this final rule. 

not dimensioned; and third, that the 

geometry does not match the geometry 

of Drawing 2921–243, ‘‘Impactor Door 

Plate,’’ to which this piece attaches. In 

response, NHTSA changed the thickness 

of the door foam to 2N (Nominal) and 

dimensions were added to be fully 

constrained. NHTSA also changed the 

drawing so that the geometries of the 

door plate and door foam match. 

Regarding Drawing 2921–600 

‘‘Honeycomb,’’ MGA suggested 

removing the overall dimensions from 

the drawing and making it for reference 

only. MGA stated that different pieces of 

equipment may behave differently and 

need to be tuned through the sizing of 

the honeycomb material. MGA also 

suggested that NHTSA specify if the 

honeycomb is to be ‘‘pre-crushed’’ as is 

common with testing involving 

aluminum honeycomb. In response, 

NHTSA did not make any changes to 

the drawing, as honeycomb is in the 

optional section of the drawings so that 

test facilities can use the honeycomb 

material and cut it to different sizes if 

necessary. NHTSA did not indicate precrush, as discussed above. 

Regarding Assembly 2921–700 ‘‘Light 

Trap Assembly,’’ MGA suggested 

removing drawings 2921–700, 2921– 

701, 2921–702. MGA stated that 

depending on the model of the light trap 

being used to record velocity, different 

sized and shaped attachments may be 

necessary. In response, NHTSA 

removed Drawings 2921–(700–702). The 

test procedure will not be using a light 

trap to determine closing speed, and 

therefore the drawings are not needed. 

5. Other Testing Issues 

i. Right-Side Impacts 

MGA also commented that there is no 

ability to perform FMVSS No. 213a 

testing on the right side of the CRS. 

MGA stated that wording in the 

proposed rule dictates the need to 

perform left- and right-side impacts but 

the SISA drawing package is not 

reversible and cannot be used for rightside impacts. MGA recognized 

modifying the equipment would require 

significant redesign. 

MGA is correct that the SISA can only 

test left-side impacts. A SISA that 

would allow both impact directions 

would have to be designed, and such 

redesign would likely affect the overall 

weight of the sliding seat, and, 

therefore, the specifications for the rest 

of the settings (i.e., honeycomb, input 

acceleration and velocity). Another 

option would be to specify a mirrorimage SISA to test in a right-side impact 

configuration, but developing such a 

sled assembly would also take time and 

resources and involve doubled testing 

costs. NHTSA has decided that both 

approaches are unnecessary at this 

juncture. While the standard only 

specifies a test simulating a left-side 

impact, as a practical matter it is 

reasonable to conclude that 

manufacturers will apply to the right 

side the same countermeasures that 

protect against left side impacts. 

Because of market forces (consumers 

will likely prefer CRSs that provide both 

left- and right-side protection over ones 

that provide only left-side protection), 

manufacturer diligence, liability 

concerns and the practicability of 

countermeasure design, NHTSA 

believes manufacturers will be 

motivated to apply the countermeasures 

developed for the left side to both sides 

of the CRS. The agency also plans to 

query CRS manufacturers to see if they 

have designed their CRSs so that the 

child restraints perform equally in a 

right-side impact as they do in the leftside test to keep informed of industry 

practices in this area. 

ii. Sliding Seat Bearings 

JPMA commented that several smaller 

JPMA members were concerned with 

the cost of the sliding seat bearings for 

the FMVSS No. 213a test set-up. JPMA 

explained that based on observations 

during side impact testing, such 

bearings will only last 30 to 40 runs per 

set and cost $750 to replace. JPMA 

added that the bearings wear quickly in 

the proposed side impact test due to 

lateral load imposed by the difference in 

the travel angle of the sled and the 

sliding seat and the lateral and vertical 

loads during the impact. JPMA 

explained that as the bearings wear 

down, they create drag, which will 

eventually cause the sliding seat pulse 

to exceed specifications. JPMA added 

that during the wearing process, 

additional burden on the already 

impaired bearings causes them to wear 

out even faster, and thereby 

necessitating frequent replacement. 

JPMA suggested that one possible 

solution would be to adjust the drawing 

package, which specifies that flange 

bearings be used. JPMA stated its belief 

that the deletion of that requirement 

would allow each test facility and/or 

manufacturer the opportunity to 

determine what type of bearings work 

best with their test fixtures. 

NHTSA concurs with the suggestion. 

The drawings are modified to specify 

the bearings as ‘‘THK Linear Motion 

Guide Model HSR30–B–2–UU– 

M+1315–M–II or equivalent’’ to allow 

compliance test facilities to use different 

brand of bearings. VRTC measured the 

drag pull/push force during testing to 

evaluate whether the bearings were 

causing excessive friction as they were 

wearing down (excessive friction is an 

indication that they may need 

replacement.).166 The data indicated 

that the drag force did not increase 

appreciably as the bearings were 

wearing down, and VRTC only replaced 

the bearings if, after higher than normal 

push/pull forces were observed, the 

push/pull forces did not decrease after 

greasing the bearings, or after additional 

troubleshooting. Per this methodology, 

VRTC replaced the bearings after 

approximately every 80 tests. NHTSA 

believes replacing the bearings every 80 

to 100 tests is not an unreasonable cost 

burden. Further, NHTSA estimates the 

cost of a bearing set is $440 ($110 each), 

which is less than what JPMA 

estimated. 

iii. Seat Belt Interference 

Graco commented that, during the 

time of engagement between the 

aluminum honeycomb and the impact 

surface of the sliding seat, the Type 2 

shoulder belt is engaged with the door 

structure, which can result in a different 

acceleration pulse. 

As discussed further in the section on 

Repeatability and Reproducibility 

below, NHTSA’s testing with the CRS 

installed using the Type 2 (lap/shoulder 

belt) showed no interference of the 

shoulder portion of the Type 2 belt with 

the door.167 In testing, the shoulder 

portion of the Type 2 belt slides behind 

the door during contact of the sliding 

seat with the door. This interaction did 

not affect the sliding seat acceleration 

pulse or any of the performance 

measures. 

c. Sled Kinematic Parameters 

1. General 

In designing FMVSS No. 213a, 

NHTSA examined data from FMVSS 

No. 214 MDB compliance tests to 

identify kinematic characteristics of a 

side impact crash, so that the sled test 

would be representative of the crash 

experience of a child restrained in a 

CRS in the rear seat. NHTSA identified 

the following sled kinematic parameters 

to replicate in the FMVSS No. 213a test: 

(1) the acceleration profile of the sliding 

seat (representing the struck vehicle 

acceleration); (2) the door velocity at 

time of contact with the sliding seat 

(this represents the struck vehicle door 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39271 

168Sullivan et al. (2009). 

169Per the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act, ‘‘motor vehicle safety standards’’ means 

a minimum standard for motor vehicle 

performance, or motor vehicle equipment 

performance, which is practicable, which meets the 

need for motor vehicle safety and which provides 

objective criteria. 

170Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis—Side 

Impact Test for Child Restraints FMVSS No. 213, 

January 2014. Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012– 

0007. 

velocity); and (3) the impact angle of the 

door with the sliding seat (to replicate 

the longitudinal component of the 

direction of force). 

NHTSA determined that a small 

passenger vehicle in an FMVSS No. 214 

MDB crash test experiences a lateral 

change in velocity of about 30 km/h 

(18.6 mph). This change in velocity is 

greater than 92 percent of near-side 

impact real-world crashes involving 

restrained children 0- to 12-years-old in 

light vehicles, as estimated by NHTSA 

using data files from the National 

Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS– 

CDS) (now known as the Crash 

Investigation Sampling System). To 

ensure that the side impact test would 

be sufficiently stringent to account for 

the greater acceleration and intrusion 

experienced by smaller vehicles, the 

agency focused on the crash 

characteristics of small passenger 

vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 side MDB 

tests, as opposed to the average 

estimates from all vehicles. 

As discussed further below, NHTSA 

proposed a test procedure that specified 

the following parameters: 

• A trapezoidal sliding seat 

acceleration profile (representing the 

struck vehicle acceleration) based on an 

analysis of ten small vehicle FMVSS No. 

214 tests. 

• A sled buck impact angle of 10 

degrees. NHTSA selected this impact 

angle based on two factors: (1) the same 

small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 MDB 

tests; and (2) a series of tests within a 

range of 0 to 20 degrees (at 0, 10, 15, and 

20 degrees) to evaluate the effect of the 

test buck’s impact angle on dummy 

kinematics and injury responses. 

Separate tests conducted to compare the 

Takata-based test to four MDB crash 

tests also found that a 10-degree impact 

angle on the sled test produced dummy 

responses closer to those measured by 

the ATD in the same CRS in the four 

MDB crash tests than the other impact 

angles.168

• A door velocity (representing the 

struck vehicle door velocity) of 31 km/ 

h (19.3 mph) prior to the honeycomb 

contacting the sliding seat structure, 

based on the FMVSS No. 214 tests of 

small vehicles with accelerometers 

installed on the doors (four out of the 

ten tested vehicles). 

NHTSA sought comment on a relative 

door velocity profile. The agency sought 

to avoid over-specifying the test 

environment, but stated that a door 

velocity profile, with respect to the 

sliding seat, may be desirable to 

improve the reproducibility of the 

interaction of the intruding door with 

the child restraint in different types of 

sled systems. Accordingly, NHTSA 

sought comment on the need for 

specifying a relative door velocity 

profile to improve reproducibility of the 

test procedure. NHTSA stated that, 

depending on whether the agency 

received information sufficiently 

supporting such a velocity profile, one 

could be included in the final rule. 

Comments Received (High View) 

There was overarching support for the 

proposed sled test procedure. Mr. 

Hauschild agreed that the NHTSA test 

procedure should account for the struck 

side door velocity, including the struck 

vehicle acceleration profile, and the 

impact angle to replicate a side impact 

crash. He also stated that testing should 

be done with and without the intruding 

door due to the complexities of the side 

impact crash event. Dorel commented in 

agreement with the test procedure’s 

intruding door approach, stating that it 

does not support a test procedure that 

does not incorporate an intruding door. 

Dorel concluded that there is no reason 

to develop, or require a fixed door 

procedure that has been shown to be 

unrepresentative of injury mechanisms 

like intrusion. 

As part of its response to NHTSA’s 

request for comment regarding the need 

to specify a relative velocity profile, 

Graco requested NHTSA provide data 

demonstrating that a CRS tested on both 

a deceleration and acceleration sled 

would provide the same end results 

given that the test meets the currently 

defined constraints. Similarly, Mr. 

Hauschild commented that the vehicle 

pulse must be incorporated into both an 

acceleration and deceleration sled test 

procedure, as it will influence the ATD 

kinematics. 

ARCCA recommended that side 

impact testing of the CRS also be 

conducted at a severity level 

comparable to side-NCAP vehicle crash 

testing. ARRCA stated its belief that the 

higher severity testing would be 

consistent with crash severity levels 

currently used to ensure that adult 

occupants are optimally protected. 

Agency Response 

The final test’s procedure 

specifications are in large part the same 

as that proposed in the NPRM, with 

some refinements. In response to the 

questions posed by NHTSA in the 

NPRM, and as discussed in more detail 

below, many commenters supported 

including a relative door velocity profile 

in the final test procedure. NHTSA 

concurs and has included the profile 

into the final test procedure. As 

discussed further in a section below, 

NHTSA’s testing at Kettering University 

after issuance of the NPRM using a 

deceleration-type sled showed good 

coefficient of variation (CV) values. The 

reproducible results from VRTC and 

Kettering confirm that the side impact 

test can be performed in the different 

sled systems and produce the same 

results. 

NHTSA disagrees with ARCCA’s 

comment that CRS side impact testing 

be conducted at a severity level 

comparable to side-NCAP vehicle crash 

testing. The FMVSS No. 214 MBD 

impact test speed of 53.9 km/h (33.4 

mph) accounts for approximately 92 

percent of near-side crashes involving 

restrained children (0- to 12-years-old 

children in all restraint environments— 

seat belts and CRSs). The NCAP side 

impact MDB test is performed at an 

impact speed of 61.9 km/h (38.4 mph), 

which is 8 km/h (4.9 mph) greater than 

the speed required in FMVSS No. 214. 

The side impact performance 

requirements set by the FMVSS 169 are 

established at a threshold level of 

performance that meets the need for 

motor vehicle safety and that satisfies 

the other requirements for setting 

FMVSSs established by the Safety Act. 

NCAP’s side impact performance tests 

are set at a higher speed to provide 

comparative information consumers can 

use to shop for vehicles, and to 

incentivize vehicle manufacturers to 

attain higher levels of performance 

beyond the minimum set by the FMVSS. 

In order to estimate the effectiveness of 

CRS padding to mitigate fatalities in 

side crashes, NHTSA conducted an indepth investigation of all cases in the 

NASS/CDS and Special Crash 

Investigation (SCI) data files for the 

8-year period from 2002 to 2009 where 

a vehicle impacted on its side in a crash 

had a CRS restrained child occupant 

who was killed in the crash.170 Results 

showed that for near side impacts, most 

fatalities (14 out of 17) were not 

survivable due to extensive vehicle 

damage and intrusion (which indicated 

increased severity/speed) or gross 

misuse. The agency determined that 

additional padding and improved CRS 

designs would not have prevented the 

14 child occupant fatalities. Therefore, 

NHTSA does not believe that increasing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39272 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

171The severity of the FMVSS No. 213a test 

protocol is greater than the existing side impact test 

in ECE R.129. 

172Sullivan et al. (2009). 

the test speed above the FMVSS No. 214 

MDB impact speed will provide 

additional safety benefits that merit the 

change. In making regulatory decisions 

on possible enhancements to CRS 

performance, NHTSA bears in mind 

consumer acceptance of cost increases 

to child seats, a highly effective item of 

safety equipment. Countermeasures 

employed to meet requirements beyond 

those necessary to meet a safety need 

may result in additional costs that could 

reduce CRS sales and CRS use. For these 

reasons, NHTSA declined to raise the 

test speed of FMVSS No. 213a to match 

that of side-NCAP tests.171

2. Specific Issues 

The following sections discuss 

additional comments received on 

aspects of the test procedure related to 

the sled kinematic parameters, 

including the sliding seat acceleration 

profile, the door impact velocity and 

relative velocity and impact time, and 

the longitudinal crash component, and 

the agency’s response to those 

comments. 

i. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile 

To obtain a target acceleration profile 

for the sliding seat that represented the 

motion of a struck vehicle, NHTSA 

analyzed the right rear sill (the opposite 

side of impact) lateral (Y-axis) 

acceleration of ten small vehicles in 

FMVSS No. 214 tests.172 The results 

showed a change in velocity of 

approximately 26 to 29 km/h (16 to 18 

mph). The right rear sill accelerations 

were averaged to derive a typical struck 

vehicle acceleration corridor for smallsized vehicles. 

Figure 6 shows the upper and lower 

boundaries of the rear sill accelerations 

in thick solid black lines while the 

dotted line represents the average of the 

accelerations. The solid thin black line 

in Figure 6 is a representative sliding 

seat acceleration pulse. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39273 

Accordingly, in the NPRM, NHTSA 

defined the acceleration corridor for the 

sliding seat as shown in Figure 7: 

Mr. Hauschild argued that the 

proposed trapezoidal pulse for the 

overall crash pulse is not representative 

of real-world crashes of current smaller 

and medium-sized vehicles, stating that 

a side impact event in small- and 

medium-sized vehicles can be harder to 

protect against than in larger vehicles. 

He stated that during the crash event of 

small- and medium-sized vehicles, 

typically there is a sharp acceleration in 

the first 10–15 milliseconds ending with 

the trapezoidal shape for the remaining 

45–50 milliseconds, and that the 

acceleration pulse shape will influence 

dummy head excursion and 

displacement. Mr. Hauschild 

recommended that NHTSA examine the 

influence of vehicle pulse shape on 

dummy kinematics. 

NHTSA concurs that smaller vehicles 

experience a side impact differently 

than larger vehicles but disagrees that 

the proposed corridor for the pulse is 

not representative of the real-world 

crash of smaller and medium-sized 

vehicles. NHTSA explained in the 

NPRM that the proposed acceleration 

corridor was based on the vehicle 

accelerations of small passenger 

vehicles in the FMVSS No. 214 MDB 

side impact tests and therefore 

represents the more challenging side 

crash environment of small vehicles. 

Comparing the accelerations of the 10 

small vehicles, Figure 8 shows that in 

the initial 10 milliseconds, the proposed 

corridor allows for a sharp acceleration, 

as described by Mr. Hauschild. In 

addition, the proposed FMVSS No. 213a 

sliding seat acceleration pulse follows 

that initial sharp acceleration in a 

similar manner as the vehicle 

acceleration pulses in these smallvehicle FMVSS No. 214 side impact 

tests. This is also consistent with the 

sharp acceleration in the first 10–15 

milliseconds, followed by a trapezoidal 

shape for the remaining 45–50 

milliseconds as described by Mr. 

Hauschild. While the trapezoidal 

acceleration corridor is necessary to 

allow for the oscillations that will be 

present during the side impact test, the 

corridor must be limited, as a wider 

corridor that would encompass the 

lower bound of all vehicle curves could 

also increase the variability of testing 

and make reproducibility more difficult. 

As shown in the figure below, the 

acceleration corridor is representative of 

the accelerations experienced in a side 

impact of a small vehicle. Accordingly, 

this final rule adopts the acceleration 

boundaries as proposed. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.010</GPH>
39274 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

173More details on how and when Kettering 

adjusted its sled system weight can be found in the 

technical report: Brelin-Fornari, J., ‘‘Final Report on 

CRS Side Impact Study of Repeatability and 

Reproducibility using a Deceleration Sled,’’ July 

2017. 174NHTSA–2014–0012–0043, at pg. 2 (Figure 1). 

ii. Tuning the Test To Account for 

Lighter Dummies 

JPMA commented that, when testing 

CRSs using lighter weight dummies like 

the 12-month-old CRABI, Calspan (an 

independent testing facility) has added 

weight to the sliding seat to maintain 

the pulse in the corridor specified by 

the NPRM. JPMA argued that the 

addition of this weight was not 

mentioned in the NPRM, and that such 

a practice could impact results and 

introduce variation if only some test 

facilities were doing it. JPMA suggested 

that NHTSA consider addressing how to 

maintain a pulse within the corridor 

when testing with lighter weight 

dummies like the 12-month-old CRABI. 

In response, NHTSA has tested CRSs 

at two different test facilities: VRTC, 

using an acceleration-type sled and 

Kettering University, in a decelerationtype sled. In both test facilities, the 

variation in weight of the CRS and the 

dummy has had no significant effect on 

the pulse. However, when Kettering 

University tested lower-weight infant 

carriers with the 12-month-old CRABI 

dummy, it had to add weight to the sled 

system (not the sliding seat) because the 

impact speed increased, making the 

corridor and impact speed slightly 

higher than the FMVSS No. 213a test 

specifications.173 These sensitivities 

will have to be tuned at each test 

facility, as each facility will have to 

provide the correct input that results in 

the required velocity and accelerations 

of the sled buck and the sliding seat. 

The inputs are not consequential to test 

outcomes, as long as the required 

velocities and accelerations are attained 

for the test. Thus, the agency has 

decided that no change to FMVSS No. 

213a is necessary. 

iii. Acceleration Corridor 

MGA suggested several modifications 

to the proposed sliding seat acceleration 

corridor. First, MGA suggested that the 

corridor be widened at time T0 (time 

when the siding seat first contacts the 

door assembly), to a 3G maximum. MGA 

stated that the sliding seat will have 

some acceleration at time of contact, 

making it difficult for the acceleration 

profile to fit into the very narrow 

acceleration range of the corridor at time 

T0. Next, MGA suggested the agency 

change the slope of the lower boundary 

of the corridor from time T0 to time 15 

msec after T0 to match the slope of the 

upper boundary of the corridor to 

further widen the corridor. MGA stated 

that the rise time of the test is dictated 

by the honeycomb, which has a very 

sharp rise rate that does not match that 

of the lower boundary of the corridor. 

Separately, MGA stated that further 

specification needs to be provided on 

the measurement of the sled and sliding 

seat acceleration and velocities. MGA 

used points (time versus G level) on the 

corridor for the acceleration of the 

sliding seat as an example of such 

additional data. 

Agency Response 

Regarding MGA’s first suggestion to 

increase the acceleration upper 

boundary at time T0 to 3 Gs, NHTSA’s 

testing at VRTC and testing at Kettering 

obtained sliding seat accelerations that 

fell within the proposed acceleration 

corridor at time T0. The sliding seat had 

some movement prior to impact with 

the honeycomb, however, that 

movement is minimal and results in 

negligible acceleration of the sliding 

seat. Additionally, MGA’s comments 

during the second comment period 

showed that it was able to meet the 

proposed sliding seat acceleration 

corridor at time T0.174 Additional test 

data provided by Graco in support of its 

comments to the NPRM also indicated 

that the initial acceleration of its sliding 

seat was within the proposed sliding 

seat acceleration corridor. Therefore, 

data indicate MGA’s concern regarding 

the narrow initial acceleration corridor 

of the sliding seat is no longer an issue, 

and so the agency has made no change 

to the proposed sliding seat acceleration 

corridor at and near time T0. 

MGA also suggested making the first 

leg of the lower acceleration corridor 

wider. NHTSA believes that this also 

may no longer be an issue, as data 

provided by MGA and Graco show that 

the test facilities could meet the sliding 

seat acceleration corridor. NHTSA 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39275 

175Sullivan et al. (2013). 

176NHTSA–2014–0012–0042, at pg. 5. Graco 

stated that crash test facilities 1 and 3 had the door 

structure relative velocity drop more than 1 km/h 

[0.62 mph] and that crash test facility 2 did not 

meet the target velocity of 19.45 mph at T0 and also 

demonstrated increased velocity during the time of 

contact with the sliding seat. 

believes it must balance the capability 

of test facilities to meet the acceleration 

corridor with maintaining good 

repeatability of the test. For these 

reasons, NHTSA is not modifying the 

lower boundary of the acceleration 

corridor between time T0 and 15 msec 

after T0, as suggested by MGA. In 

response to MGA’s comment that 

further clarification needs to be 

provided on the measurement of the 

sled and sliding seat acceleration and 

velocities, the agency has included the 

sliding seat acceleration corridor 

coordinates in this final rule’s 

regulatory text. 

After consideration of these 

comments, NHTSA is maintaining the 

sliding seat acceleration profile 

proposed in the NPRM for the final test 

procedure. This acceleration profile 

appropriately represents the 

accelerations experienced in a side 

impact of a small vehicle. 

3. Door Parameters 

The door velocity (which represents 

the struck vehicle door velocity) was 

obtained from the integration of door 

acceleration data from four of the ten 

aforementioned FMVSS No. 214 

compliance tests (these four vehicles 

were the only ones tested with 

accelerometers installed on the door). 

The accelerometers were installed in the 

inner structure of the door at the upper 

centerline and mid centerline door 

locations. The resulting lateral (Y-axis) 

peak velocities of the door during 

interaction with the test dummy ranged 

from 30 km/h (18.6 mph) at the upper 

centerline to 32.0 km/h (20 mph) at the 

mid-centerline. Thus, the target lateral 

door velocity selected for the test buck 

was 31 km/h (19.3 mph), the average of 

the velocities, prior to the honeycomb 

contacting the sliding seat structure. 

NHTSA explained in the NPRM that, 

since the kinematics of the door prior to 

the interaction with the sliding seat do 

not affect the energy and impulse 

imparted to the sliding seat and child 

restraint system, the agency believed 

that the acceleration profile of the 

impacting door did not need to be 

specified as long as its velocity during 

the interaction with the sliding seat and 

child restraint system is maintained 

within specified velocity tolerances. 

Response to Comments 

Dorel and JPMA requested 

clarification of data and information 

contained in Figure 25 of the ‘‘Child 

Restraint Side Impact Test Procedure 

Development’’ technical report (velocity 

data plots from vehicle test 6635 and 

sled test 6904).175 Dorel noted the peak 

velocity of the sliding seat appeared to 

be 27 km/h (16.7 mph). While the door 

velocity has a 34 km/h (21.13 mph) at 

T0 and a 30.5 km/h (18.95 mph) door 

velocity at 50 ms, Dorel argued that this 

did not appear to be consistent with the 

specifications of the NPRM to: (1) 

accelerate the test platform to achieve a 

relative velocity (V0) of 31.3 ± 0.8 km/ 

h in the direction perpendicular to the 

SORL between the SISA sliding seat and 

the door assembly at the time they come 

in contact (time = T0); and (2) ensure the 

sliding seat has a change in velocity of 

31.3 ± 0.8 km/h and an acceleration 

within the proposed corridor. 

Agency Response 

The purpose of Figure 25 of the 

technical report was to illustrate that the 

event of the side impact sled test is very 

similar to the FMVSS No. 214 vehicle 

side impact crash. Test 6635 was one of 

the 4 vehicle tests that helped determine 

the door velocity. Because the vehicle 

inner door velocities are only measured 

in two points in the door and the initial 

door velocities are not stable as shown 

by the wide oscillations in the 

beginning of the event, the door velocity 

was taken once the door velocity signal 

was stabilized, which was between 30 

km/h (18.6 mph) and 32.0 km/h (20 

mph). These velocities were within the 

ranges specified in the NPRM. When the 

door interacts with the seat, the seat 

starts to move along with the door, and 

so the velocity of the seat is the same 

as that of the door. In the side impact 

sled test, the sliding seat interacts with 

the door and moves along with the door 

after crushing of the honeycomb 

structure. As shown in Figure 25 of the 

referenced technical report, the 

simulated door and sliding seat velocity 

of the sled test configuration is most 

similar to that of the Nissan Sentra. 

Graco and MGA commented that they 

were unable to keep the door velocity at 

less than or equal to the initial door 

velocity (V0) and greater than or equal 

to V0-1 km/h during the interaction with 

the sliding seat. Graco presented a 

velocity pulse comparison from three 

different test labs, stating that, while it 

appeared that the velocity requirements 

and acceleration corridor were 

achievable on a consistent basis, their 

testing indicated that all three test 

facilities were not able to meet the 

requirement for the door structure 

velocity to stay within 1 km/h during 

contact with the sliding seat.176 Graco 

surmised that the variation drivers 

between the three facilities were most 

likely the aluminum honeycomb area, 

differences in accelerometer types and 

locations, and differences in pressure 

settings. Graco suggested that the 

countermeasures to improve the 

consistency of aluminum honeycomb 

geometry may improve this inconsistent 

velocity. Graco compared velocity 

results to the actual proposed limits to 

understand if the targets were 

achievable and commented that the 

limits appeared to be achievable, but 

controls are needed to prevent the 

sliding door velocity from falling more 

than V(T0)-1 during the door contact 

event. 

NHTSA agrees with Graco that the 

honeycomb area and volume are 

important to control the sliding seat 

acceleration. This final rule’s SISA 

specification includes details on the 

honeycomb material and its dimensions 

to improve reproducibility of the test 

results. However, we clarify to readers 

that the honeycomb area and/or volume 

can be modified, as necessary, to tune 

each system to obtain a sliding seat 

acceleration within the specified 

acceleration corridor; the regulatory text 

does not provide express specifications 

on this aspect of the procedure. 

NHTSA agrees that the accelerometer 

type and location are important to 

achieve consistent results in different 

test facilities. Accordingly, the 

accelerometer type and location have 

been specified in the final SISA 

technical drawings. 

Graco also requested that NHTSA 

provide more background information, 

including NHTSA’s experimental data, 

regarding the need to control the 

relative velocity within 1 km/h while 

the door structure is in contact with the 

sliding seat. Graco suggested that if this 

is not a critical parameter, NHTSA 

should consider increasing the 1 km/h 

limit because test facilities did not meet 

the proposed specification. Similarly, 

MGA stated that it successfully met the 

sled test specifications but was unable 

to meet the requirement that the door 

velocity not decrease more than 1 km/ 

h during the interaction with the sliding 

seat. MGA explained that during the 

time of interaction (which MGA 

assumed to mean the duration of the 

honeycomb crush—roughly 50 ms to 

100 ms), MGA observed a velocity 

change from around 32 km/h to around 

29 km/h (a 3 km/h change), and noted 

that the velocity change at VRTC was 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39276 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

177NHTSA–2014–0012–0043, at pgs. 10–11. 

178Study of Global Road Safety Partnership 

(GRSP) side impact testing. Takata Corporation. 

November 10, 2011. Docketed with this final rule. 

179 Interaction with the sliding seat is considered 

to be during the period from time T0, when the 

sliding seat is first impacted by the door assembly, 

to the time when acceleration of the sliding seat 

reaches 0 G, usually between 48 and 58 ms from 

T0. 

180The sled carriage is the bottom part of the sled, 

and the sliding seat is on top of that. 

181 Dorel stated that, if sufficient repeatability and 

reproducibility were later validated, it would not 

object to the simplification of the requirement at 

that time. 

182Seat orientation reference line means the 

horizontal line through Point Z as illustrated in 

Figure 1 of S4 in the regulatory text of the NPRM. 

183Supra, see Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012. 

from 32 km/h to around 30 km/h (a 2 

km/h velocity change).177 MGA stated 

that the velocity change during the 

impact in both the test facilities would 

be considered to be outside the limit 

proposed by the NPRM, and suggested 

that this test specification be modified. 

After considering these comments and 

other information, NHTSA is modifying 

the specification for door velocity. 

NHTSA added this specification 

because Takata had demonstrated 178

that when the door velocity reduces by 

more than 4 km/h during the interaction 

with the sliding seat, the HIC values and 

chest deflections measured on the Q3s 

were significantly reduced. However, as 

discussed further below, because 

NHTSA is specifying a relative velocity 

corridor between the door and the 

sliding seat—in addition to specifying 

the sliding seat acceleration corridor 

and the door velocity at the time of 

contact with the sliding seat— 

specifications of the door velocity 

during the interaction of the sliding seat 

can be widened to some extent. 

NHTSA’s testing with the final SISA 

configuration showed that the sled/door 

velocity reduced 1.66 to 1.89 km/h 

during the interaction with the sliding 

seat, from the door velocity at time of 

initial contact with the sliding seat.179

In order to ensure satisfactory 

reproducibility of the side impact test 

while providing reasonable flexibility to 

testing facilities to conduct the test, 

NHTSA is specifying that the door (sled) 

velocity during interaction with the 

sliding seat not decrease beyond 2.5 km/ 

h from the door velocity at the time the 

door structure contacts the sliding seat. 

NHTSA believes that if the door velocity 

reduces beyond 4 km/h during the 

interaction with the sliding seat, it may 

not be possible to meet the 

specifications for the sliding seat 

acceleration corridor or the relative 

velocity corridor. This is discussed in 

more detail below. 

4. Relative Door Velocity Profile 

The 2014 NPRM proposed a door 

impact velocity and a sliding seat 

acceleration profile and requested 

comment on whether a relative door 

velocity profile should also be specified. 

NHTSA stated that a relative door 

velocity profile (with respect to the 

sliding seat) may be desirable to ensure 

a more reproducible interaction of the 

intruding door with the child restraint 

in different types of sled systems, and 

requested comments on the need for 

specifying a relative door velocity 

profile to improve reproducibility of the 

test procedure. NHTSA stated that, 

depending on whether the agency 

received information sufficiently 

supporting such a velocity profile, one 

may be included in the final rule. 

Response to Comments 

Dorel supported the inclusion of two 

separate velocity profiles, one for the 

bottom part of the sled that has the door 

and one for the sliding seat.180 Dorel 

believed that two velocity profile 

specifications would provide improved 

parameters for repeatability at 

individual test facilities and improved 

reproducibility between test 

facilities.181

NHTSA has determined that 

specifying a door velocity profile 

relative to the sliding seat will improve 

the reproducibility of the interaction of 

the intruding door with the child 

restraint, and thus has defined the 

relative velocity between the sled door 

and the sliding seat. This is consistent 

with Dorel’s suggestion of having two 

separate velocity profiles. Since the 

relative velocity is calculated using the 

velocities of the sled carriage and the 

sliding seat, it would be controlling both 

velocities to improve the repeatability 

and reproducibility throughout the 

event, not only at impact. If these 

velocities are not controlled, it may be 

possible to create different velocity 

profiles with more fluctuations that may 

result in different injury measures. The 

impact speed at time T0 (the time at 

which the door contacts the sliding seat 

structure) is the relative velocity 

between the sled door and the sliding 

seat. While in an acceleration-type sled 

the velocity of the sliding seat is close 

to zero, there is some slight movement 

of the sliding seat before impact with 

the door assembly, and this movement 

may vary at each test facility. In a 

deceleration-type sled, the velocity of 

the sled door is zero at the time of the 

impact of the door assembly with the 

sliding seat. Each test facility will have 

to tune its system to determine the 

necessary velocity of the sled door to 

achieve the required relative velocity at 

the time of impact (T0) with the 

honeycomb, regardless of whether it is 

done in an acceleration-type or 

deceleration-type sled system. 

Graco commented against a relative 

velocity profile, believing this to 

possibly over-constrain the system. 

Graco requested that NHTSA provide 

data demonstrating that a CRS tested on 

both a deceleration and an acceleration 

sled would provide the same end results 

given that the test meets the currently 

defined constraints (door velocity 

requirements and sliding seat velocity/ 

acceleration requirements). In response, 

NHTSA’s demonstration of repeatability 

and reproducibility using both a 

deceleration and acceleration sled is 

discussed in the section below, 

‘‘Reproducibility and Repeatability.’’ 

JPMA stated that, contrary to what 

was stated in the NPRM preamble, the 

proposed regulatory text for S6.1.1(b) 

specified a sliding seat acceleration 

pulse and a relative door velocity, but 

not a door velocity. JPMA added that 

the proposed regulatory text included a 

specification that the velocity of the sled 

be the same as the relative door velocity. 

The NPRM proposed a specification 

to ‘‘accelerate the test platform to 

achieve a relative velocity (V0) of 31.3 

± 0.8 km/h in the direction 

perpendicular to the seat orientation 

reference line 182 (SORL) between the 

SISA sliding seat and the door assembly 

at the time they come in contact (T0).’’ 

This is not the same as proposing a 

specific door (sled) velocity profile; 

instead it is a specification that this 

door velocity could not be reduced more 

than 1 km/h during the interaction with 

the sliding seat. The door velocity and 

the ‘‘relative door-sliding seat velocity’’ 

are not necessarily the same. The 

velocity of the door relative to the 

sliding seat refers to the velocity 

difference between the door and the 

sliding seat. If the sliding seat velocity 

is equal to zero, the door velocity and 

the relative velocity of the door and 

sliding seat would be the same, but as 

there is some slight movement of the 

sliding seat prior to impact, the velocity 

of the door and the relative velocity of 

the door and sliding seat are not the 

same. In this final rule, NHTSA is 

adopting not only a relative velocity at 

time of impact of the door assembly 

with the sliding seat, but also a relative 

velocity corridor throughout the event 

(relative velocity corridor). 

In the December 15, 2021 meeting, 

JPMA 183 requested that NHTSA specify 

an incoming sled carriage pulse corridor 

to reduce lab-to-lab test variability. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39277 

184Wietholter, K. & Louden, A. (2021, November). 

Repeatability and Reproducibility of the FMVSS No. 

213 Side Impact Test. Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Additionally, JPMA requested adding 

bracing and structural improvements to 

the door assembly to eliminate 

dampened oscillatory motions during 

testing. 

NHTSA disagrees with JPMA 

regarding the need to specify an 

incoming sled carriage acceleration 

pulse to minimize lab-to-lab variability. 

The testing at VRTC and at Kettering,184

detailed in Section IX, demonstrated 

that specifications for the sliding seat 

acceleration profile corridor, the relative 

velocity at impact time, and the relative 

door velocity profile corridor are 

sufficient to ensure adequate 

reproducibility of the test not only at 

different test facilities but also when 

using different types of sled systems 

(deceleration and acceleration sled 

systems) where the incoming sled 

carriage acceleration pulses can be very 

different. Regarding rigidizing the door 

assembly, NHTSA does not see the need 

for it. While there may be some door 

oscillations, the side impact test has 

been validated against vehicle tests 

(which also showed door oscillations) 

and has consistently produced 

repeatable results in tests conducted at 

VRTC and Kettering. As long as the 

relative door velocity and the sliding 

seat accelerations are within required 

specifications (including the relative 

door velocity profile corridor adopted in 

this final rule), there is no need to make 

further structural improvements to the 

door assembly. 

TRL recommended, based on its 

experience, that a relative velocity 

should be specified to ensure consistent 

test input conditions between test 

facilities. TRL commented that the side 

impact test in ECE R.129 was developed 

on a deceleration sled and that TRL 

validated this method for the European 

commission. TRL explained that this 

validation included investigating the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test method as well as validating it 

against full scale crash tests. TRL added 

that this experience showed that the 

door-sled relative velocity is an 

important factor to control, and that 

without a control on this parameter the 

test severity can vary. 

MGA commented that input 

constraints for just the sliding seat 

acceleration and relative sliding seat/ 

door velocity limit should be sufficient. 

NHTSA agrees with TRL that the 

velocity of the door relative to the 

sliding seat at the time the honeycomb 

contacts the sliding seat and throughout 

the side impact event is an important 

parameter that should be specified in 

this final rule. Figure 9 shows the 

average (dotted line) and the upper and 

lower boundaries (solid lines) of the 

velocity profile for the door relative to 

the sliding seat in sled tests performed 

during the development of the test 

procedure prior to the NPRM. The 

upper and lower boundaries of the 

relative door velocity represent the 

maximum and minimum values of the 

relative door velocity profiles in these 

sled tests. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

After consideration of comments and 

other information, NHTSA has decided 

to include a requirement for the relative 

door velocity with respect to the sliding 

seat to control the door interaction with 

the sliding seat and CRS throughout the 

event. Further, TRL had commented 

that a defined range for door intrusion 

is a factor affecting the severity of the 

test and should be defined to ensure 

consistent test conditions. The relative 

door velocity specification in this final 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.012</GPH>
39278 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

185Tests that were within new relative velocity 

tolerance at impact time conducted at VRTC in 

April 2017 and November 2017. 

186Tests that were within new relative velocity 

tolerance at impact time conducted at Kettering 

University in 2016. 

rule will also control the intrusion of 

the door into the seat compartment. 

The coordinates of the relative 

velocity corridor are defined in the 

regulatory text. Using data from testing 

with the updated sliding seat design in 

two laboratories (see Figure 10), NHTSA 

developed a slightly different relative 

door velocity corridor with respect to 

the sliding seat from that presented in 

the preamble of the NPRM. This 

corridor is wider than the corridor in 

the NPRM to allow more flexibility in 

conducting the test at different test 

facilities while maintaining good 

repeatability and reproducibility. While 

Graco commented that a relative 

velocity corridor may over-constrain the 

system, we believe a relative velocity 

corridor is necessary to control the 

velocity throughout the event, which 

will help maximize repeatability and 

reproducibility. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

5. Relative Velocity at Impact Time 

(T0)—Tolerance 

NHTSA proposed an impact (T0) 

relative velocity (V0) of 31.3 ± 0.8 km/ 

h, meaning at time of impact of the door 

with the sled, the relative velocity is 

within 31.3 +/¥0.8 km/h. The agency 

performed a series of tests to determine 

the effect of the relative velocity at time 

T0 on performance measures. NHTSA 

intended to conduct three tests of a CRS 

model by varying the relative velocity at 

time T0 within a range of 1.6 km/h to 

cover the allowable range in velocity; 

however, one of the tests performed at 

the lower speed (30.28 km/h) fell out of 

the allowable relative velocity limits of 

30.5 km/h to 32.1 km/h. Table 17 below 

shows the results of these repeat tests. 

TABLE 17—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF THE DOOR WITH RESPECT TO THE SLIDING SEAT AT

TIME OF IMPACT (TIME T0) WITH THE Q3S ATD IN A GRACO READY RIDE CRS INSTALLED FORWARD-FACING USING

CRAS. 

Database test No. CRS HIC15 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

Impact relative 

velocity 

[km/h] 

Impact relative 

velocity 

[mph] 

10279 ................................................ Graco Ready Ride ........................... 587 20.45 30.28 18.82 

10273 ................................................ ........................................................... 723 19.82 31.06 19.29 

10272 ................................................ ........................................................... 771 21.48 31.99 19.88 

Average ............................................ 693.66 20.58 ........................ ........................

Std Dev ............................................ 77.67 0.68 ........................ ........................

CV % ................................................ 11 3 ........................ ........................


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39279 

187The percent coefficient of variation (%CV) is 

a measure of variability expressed as a percentage 

of the mean. 

188Sullivan et al. (2009). 

189See NHTSA–2014–0012–0035, at pg. 3. In 

Dorel’s first comment submission it reported a head 

displacement between 48 mm (1.9 in) to 54 mm (2.1 

in). 

190See 49 CFR 571.225. 

191See NHTSA–2014–0012–0045, at pg. 3. 

192 Id. 

Results showed that coefficient of 

variation (CV) 187 values for HIC15 

reached 11 percent and chest deflection 

only 3 percent. Given the slightly high 

CV values for HIC15 at the extreme 

ranges, NHTSA concluded that reducing 

the tolerance for the specified relative 

velocity would be beneficial to control 

repeatability and reproducibility. 

NHTSA updated the impact relative 

velocity and tolerance to 31.3 ± 0.64 

km/h (instead of 31.3 ± 0.8 km/h) to 

better achieve the desired repeatability 

and reproducibility within the 

parameters of sled systems. Both 

acceleration (at VRTC) and deceleration 

(at Kettering) sled systems were able to 

consistently produce impact relative 

velocity within the specified reduced 

relative velocity tolerance levels. Tests 

results with relative velocities within 

the reduced tolerances showed good 

repeatability and reproducibility, and 

are discussed in more detail in Section 

IX. 

6. Longitudinal Crash Component 

NHTSA determined the impact angle 

of the sled buck using data from the 

same ten small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 

tests that were used to derive the 

acceleration corridor and door velocity. 

NHTSA evaluated the effect of the test 

buck’s impact angle on dummy 

kinematics and injury responses 

through a range of testing at 0, 10, 15, 

and 20 degrees. Based on the tests and 

average impact angle calculated from 

the FMVSS No. 214 tests, NHTSA 

selected a 10-degree impact angle as the 

most appropriate. NHTSA found that a 

10-degree impact angle on the sled test 

produced dummy responses closer to 

those measured by the ATD in the same 

CRS in the four MDB crash tests than 

the other impact angles. This work was 

described in detail in NHTSA’s 2009 

Initial Evaluation study.188

Dorel and JPMA noted that during 

sled tests conducted by the agency for 

the proposed rule, the child dummy 

experienced what the commenters 

described as artificial forward head 

movement before crash impact. Dorel 

described that the CRS seat back pulls 

away from the head in the agency’s sled 

side impact test video (100629–3) prior 

to T0 (T0 being time of contact of the 

sliding seat with the door assembly). 

Dorel believed this movement to be an 

artifact of the 10-degree fixture angle 

and the pre-test distance of the sliding 

seat from the side door assembly. 

Dorel stated that the sliding seat is 

positioned sufficiently away from the 

side door to allow the sled to reach a 

desired velocity (31.3 km/h) prior to the 

time the sliding seat starts to accelerate 

to a specific acceleration profile. The 

commenter stated that, during this run 

up time and prior to the interaction of 

the sliding seat with the door, the CRS 

seat back pulls away from the head. 

Dorel further stated that, in accordance 

with Newton’s 1st law that an object at 

rest (in this case, the head) will stay at 

rest unless an external force acts upon 

it (in this case the CRS pulling the ATD 

torso), the ATD’s head is tilted forward 

prior to the interaction of the striking 

vehicle and door. 

Dorel provided data showing that the 

measured head displacement in sled 

tests with its forward-facing Safety 1st 

Air Protect CRS appeared to be as much 

as 86 mm (3.4 in) at T0 and 185 mm (7.3 

in) at T0+29 msec.189 Dorel noted that 

during this period, the dummy head 

remained in the center of the main sled 

rails while the 10-degree rails with the 

sliding seat pulled the CRS laterally 

away from the head. Dorel stated that 

this motion placed the head out of 

position in relation to the side wings of 

the CRS prior to impact and thus 

artificially deprived the dummy of the 

benefit of the side wing protection, and 

may artificially increase the measured 

injury values. Dorel stated its belief that 

this head motion appeared to react like 

pre-crash braking prior to the vehicle 

being struck in its side, which is not 

apparent in the FMVSS No. 214 MDB 

crash test video or data. Dorel explained 

that the FMVSS No. 214 test method 

does not incorporate pre-crash braking 

of the struck vehicle prior to MDB side 

crash in its simulation. 

As additional support for this 

proposition about the artificiality of the 

proposed test, Dorel described a 2014 

full scale, vehicle-to-vehicle side impact 

test conducted by Transport Canada 

Research & Development. Dorel 

explained that the struck vehicle in this 

test was a 2011 model year passenger 

car with the near side rear passenger 

position occupied by a Q3s dummy 

restrained by the internal harness of a 

forward-facing Alpha Elite (Non-Air 

Protect Model) CRS installed using the 

lower anchors of a child restraint 

anchorage system 190 and tether. Dorel 

provided screenshots of the dummy 

kinematics during the test and noted 

that at T0-65 and T0, there was no head 

displacement, while measurement from 

T0 to T0+29 showed ∼24mm lateral 

movement of the Q3s dummy head.191

Dorel also referenced a 2002 New Car 

Assessment Program side impact 

(SINCAP) test series that included CRSs 

in rear seating positions, where the ATD 

did not experience pre-crash head 

motions. Dorel provided still 

photographs of the dummy from a test 

with the Nissan Sentra with a Dorel 

Triad CRS installed in the rear seat.192

Dorel stated that the photographs 

illustrate the same T0 head motion 

references as the Transport Canada tests. 

Dorel referenced its proposed test 

procedure (the Dorel-Kettering method 

proposed in a May 2009 petition, 

discussed above) that did not exhibit 

pre-crash event head motion. Dorel 

commented that the Dorel-Kettering 

method did not induce unintended head 

motion prior to T0 (as the seat assembly 

is stationary at the time of impact). The 

commenter emphasized that the head 

motion of the ATD is not observed in 

the FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests that the 

agency used as the basis for NHTSA’s 

proposed test method for FMVSS No. 

213a and that Dorel used to develop its 

Dorel-Kettering side impact test. 

Agency Response 

The FMVSS No. 214 and the side 

NCAP crash tests are conducted with a 

stationary target vehicle, so there is no 

dummy head movement expected prior 

to impact. The MDB impacts the target 

vehicle at a crabbed angle (27 degrees) 

simulating a side impact of the target 

vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph) 

by the striking MDB traveling at 48 km/ 

h. With the FMVSS No. 213a test 

procedure, the 10-degree angle of the 

motion of the sliding seat with respect 

to the sled system was to reproduce the 

longitudinal loading on the vehicle 

simulated in the FMVSS No. 214 

vehicle test. The Dorel-Kettering test 

procedure does not have the capability 

of simulating this longitudinal 

component of the impact, which the 

agency believes is a limitation of their 

test. The longitudinal component of the 

impact is important to reproduce since 

real world data indicate that most side 

vehicle crashes have a longitudinal 

crash component. 

As discussed in the NPRM, data 

indicate that child restraints should be 

designed to account for both 

longitudinal and lateral components of 

the direction of force in a side crash. 

Sherwood found that most side crashes 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39280 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

193Sherwood, et al. ‘‘Factors Leading to Crash 

Fatalities to Children in Child Restraints,’’ 47th 

Annual Proceedings of the Association for the 

Advancement of Automotive Medicine, September 

2003. 

had a longitudinal crash component.193

A comparison of results of sled tests 

with the same door impact velocity 

conducted using the Dorel-Kettering 

method and the proposed FMVSS No. 

213a side impact test showed that the 

dummy injury measures were 

consistently lower using the DorelKettering test method. Dorel did not 

present any data demonstrating that the 

dummy responses in the Dorel-Kettering 

sled tests are similar to those observed 

in vehicle crash tests, while such data 

were provided in the NPRM. NHTSA 

believed the Dorel-Kettering test 

procedure needed further development 

to represent the crash environment 

experienced by children in child 

restraints in near-side impacts, and 

decided the test method would not 

protect children in side impacts as 

completely as the proposed FMVSS No. 

213a test procedure. 

The agency tracked head motion 

during its repeatability and 

reproducibility test series (discussed 

further below) at VRTC and Kettering to 

quantify dummy head nodding (forward 

displacement) during the test. The tests 

performed at VRTC and Kettering used 

the proposed FMVSS No. 213a test 

procedure. As shown in Table 18, the 

average head displacement at the time 

of impact with the door assembly (T0) 

was 48.9 mm at VRTC and 62.1 mm at 

Kettering. The maximum range of head 

forward displacement in the X-direction 

at T0 in the VRTC tests was 6.4 mm and 

14.6 mm in the Kettering tests. 

Differences in head position at time of 

impact between VRTC and Kettering for 

the same CRS ranged from 17.4 to 59.5 

mm. The difference in the position of 

the head at the time T0 in a test facility 

or between the two test facilities did not 

translate into unacceptable variability in 

the performance measures as shown in 

the repeatability and reproducibility 

analysis, discussed further below. 

Instead, the difference in head position 

was attributable to the longitudinal 

crash component in the FMVSS No. 

213a test, an aspect of a side crash 

present in real-world intersection-type 

crashes. 

NHTSA concurs with Dorel that there 

is forward head displacement prior to 

time T0 in the proposed FMVSS No. 

213a test. However, this displacement 

realistically reflects real-world side 

crashes, as struck vehicles in side 

impacts are usually travelling forward, 

and reflects the FMVSS No. 214 vehicleto-vehicle side crash. The forward head 

displacement is not a test artifact that 

renders the FMVSS No. 213a test 

artificial; rather, it is an indicator of the 

representativeness of the test. 

Accordingly, NHTSA did not make any 

changes to the test procedure impact 

angle. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39281 

194TEMA means ‘‘TrackEye Motion Analysis’’ 

software. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

d. Test Set Up and Procedure 

The proposed test procedure specified 

how child restraints would be installed 

and positioned on the sliding seat. In 

short, NHTSA proposed that: 

• CRSs other than boosters would be 

attached to the SISA with the CRAS 

lower attachments and the child 

restraint’s top tether would be attached 

if the owner’s manual instructed 

consumers to attach the tether; 

• Belt-positioning booster seats 

would be tested with Type 2 (lap and 

shoulder) belts; and, 

• The CRS would be installed 

centered on the sliding seat, with the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.015</GPH>
39282 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

195The belt system currently specified in FMVSS 

No. 213 is a lap belt (Type 1 belt). The November 

2, 2020 NPRM proposed changing the belt to a lap/ 

shoulder belt (Type 2 belt). 

196As the original Takata test sled only had a 

Type 2 belt system, NHTSA modified the test bench 

seat to incorporate a child restraint anchorage 

system. 

197 79 FR at 4589, col. 2. 

198When the 2014 NPRM was published, it was 

possible for booster seats to be subject to the 

proposed standard, if such boosters were sold for 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb). 

However, the November 2, 2020 NPRM proposed to 

amend FMVSS No. 213 so that booster seats could 

not be sold for children weighing less than 18.1 kg 

(40 lb). If the November 2020 proposal is adopted, 

booster seats will not be permitted to be sold for 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb)—so the 

side impact requirements of FMVSS No. 213a will 

not apply. 

199The commenter referred to research that found 

there is less excursion using the CRAS compared 

to vehicle belts. In evaluating the comment, we 

determined that the research to which the 

commenter refers studied differences in 

performance involving far-side impacts. NHTSA’s 

statement on the two different attachment methods 

having similar performance was referring to nearside impact tests where paired comparisons using 

different CRS installation methods resulted in 

HIC15 and chest deflection results that were not 

significantly different. We have not engaged in 

studies to assess the far-side performance of CRSs 

so we cannot confirm the findings of the study cited 

by Mr. Hauschild. 

200Britax stated that requiring testing under 

FMVSS No. 213a with the Type 1 belt installation 

would unnecessarily increase the efforts and 

expense of testing, with minimal real-world 

benefits. 

front face of the armrest on the door 

approximately 32 mm (about 1.25 

inches) from the edge of the sliding seat 

(towards the CRS) at the time the 

honeycomb interacts with the sliding 

seat structure. 

• The Q3s dummy would be 

positioned in the child restraint 

according to the manufacturer’s 

positioning procedures. 

• A CRS that is recommended by its 

manufacturer for use either by children 

having a mass between 5 and 10 kg (11 

to 22 lb) or by children with heights 

between 650 and 850 mm, (25.6 and 

33.5 inches) would be tested with the 

12-month-old CRABI. 

• A CRS that is recommended by its 

manufacturer for use either by children 

having a mass between 10 and 18.1 kg 

(22 to 40 lb) or by children with heights 

between 850 and 1100 mm, (33.5 and 

43.3 inches) would be tested with the 

Q3s dummy. 

1. CRS Attachment 

i. Lower Anchor and/or Seat Belt CRS 

Installation 

FMVSS No. 213 currently requires 

most types of CRSs to meet the frontal 

crash requirements both when secured 

to the vehicle seat assembly with a 

vehicle belt, and when secured by a 

child restraint anchorage system (CRAS) 

(S5.3.2).195 The 2014 side impact NPRM 

proposed to test CRSs other than booster 

seats with just the CRAS, as preliminary 

tests showed similar performance by the 

seats when attached by CRAS or by a 

Type 2 belt.196 NHTSA requested 

comments on whether the proposed 

standard should also require these car 

seats to meet FMVSS No. 213a when 

attached to the seat assembly with a belt 

system.197 Under the NPRM, beltpositioning booster seats subject to the 

standard would be tested with a Type 2 

belt.198

Comments Received 

Many commenters recommended that 

NHTSA conduct CRS testing under two 

different installation modes: by CRAS 

and by a 3-point lap/shoulder (Type 2) 

seat belt system. 

Safe Ride News (SRN) argued that 

both a CRAS and a belt installation 

should be tested, as children under 18.1 

kg (40 lb) will frequently be in a CRS 

that is installed with a seat belt due to 

the predisposition of some caregivers 

not to use CRAS, or the lack of lower 

anchors in a vehicle position (e.g., the 

center rear seat of the second row on 

most vehicles). SRN argued that nonpassing results would compel 

manufacturers to improve their CRS 

designs for both lower anchor 

attachments and for seat belt 

attachment, and ensure an adequate 

routing of the seat belt ‘‘path’’ through 

the CRS to meet the side impact 

standard. SRN also requested the agency 

to provide the data supporting NHTSA’s 

statement in the NPRM that the 

performance of the child restraints, 

when using CRAS and the belt system, 

were similar. 

Britax and JPMA commented in 

support of the use of the Type 2 belt 

system, arguing that the majority of 

vehicles in the current fleet now have 

lap/shoulder belts across the rear 

seating compartment, and the use of 

Type 1 belts for testing is not consistent 

with the majority of in-vehicle belted 

installations. UPPAbaby also supported 

use of a Type 2 belt test as presenting 

a ‘‘realistic situation in the majority of 

vehicles today.’’ 

Mr. Hauschild believed that NHTSA’s 

finding that ‘‘the Type II [sic] belt 

system showed similar performance 

metrics to that obtained when the CRSs 

were attached using [CRAS]’’ was 

contrary to other research that examined 

CRAS and belt anchors.199 He believed 

that CRS testing should include both 

CRAS and Type 2 belt systems, and that 

further studies may be needed to 

compare the performance of CRAS and 

Type 2 belts for side impact events. 

Advocates recommend that each CRS 

be required to pass the proposed testing 

under all installation conditions 

specified by the manufacturer in its 

owner instructions for the specific 

restraint. Advocates stated that, if a CRS 

can be installed with CRAS, a Type I 

belt, or a Type 2 belt without the top 

tether, then it should be required to pass 

the proposed tests under all those 

conditions to ensure that the child will 

be offered the proper amount of 

protection regardless of the installation 

method selected by the caregiver. 

Consumers Union (CU) also 

supported testing CRSs with both the 

CRAS attachment and Type 2 belts. CU 

stated that Type 2 belts are prevalent in 

current model vehicles, often occupy 

different belt paths on the child restraint 

than the CRAS belts, and use different 

‘‘lockoff’’ mechanisms than in CRAS 

installations. (Lockoff refers to the use 

of CRS components that cinch or clamp 

the vehicle seat belt to prevent 

loosening of the seat belt. In some cases, 

CRS lockoffs, which vary by CRSs, can 

be used in lieu of ‘‘locking’’ the vehicle 

seat belt retractor using the standardized 

lockability feature of a vehicle’s seat 

belt.) CU also stated that Type 2 belts 

may allow some additional ‘‘pivoting’’ 

of seats around their ‘‘buckle’’ side that 

may not be seen with CRAS, which may 

be critical to a comprehensive review of 

side impact performance. The 

commenter also referred, as did SRN 

and JPMA, to FMVSS No. 213’s labeling 

requirements that restrict use of CRAS 

to where the combined weight of the 

CRS and child is less than 29.5 kg (65 

lb). These commenters argued that this 

restriction on CRAS use will likely 

produce a trend toward increased use of 

seat belts to install CRSs, particularly 

forward-facing CRSs and restraints 

recommended for heavier children. The 

commenters argued that NHTSA’s not 

requiring testing of the seat belt 

installation would overlook this 

prominent mode of use. However, CU 

stated, as did JPMA and Britax,200 that 

testing with Type 1 (lap only) belts 

should not be considered as lap belts are 

rarely seen in current model vehicles. 

They further argued that a lap belt test 

is not necessary because most CRSs are 

designed so that the lap belt attachment 

and loading path are the same as those 

used by CRAS straps. 

NTSB commented that parents or 

caregivers may choose to install a CRS 

using the vehicle’s seat belt for many 

reasons, including ease of installation 

and a lack of seating positions with 

lower CRAS attachments. NTSB stated 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39283 

201NHTSA–2014–0012–0045, at pg. 6. 

202See Sullivan et al. (2013) for results of these 

tests. 

that an analysis of 79,000 CRS checklist 

forms by Safe Kids USA confirmed that 

approximately 60 percent of the 

examined CRSs were installed with seat 

belts. The commenter believed that, 

given the prevalence of seat belt 

installations, safety would be better 

served by requiring the CRS to be tested 

under all vehicle securement 

conditions. Furthermore, NTSB argued, 

because the proposed rule focused on 

assessing the capability of the CRS to 

maintain its structural integrity, 

requiring the restraint system to be 

tested in all installation options would 

ensure the strength of the entire seat 

system, including the multiple routing 

options for various types of seat belts. 

NTSB added that, because the dynamics 

of the CRS interaction with the 

intruding vehicle door are integral to the 

test, the orientation of the seat at the 

point of impact may affect the kinematic 

response of the dummy. NTSB argued 

that varied installation options may 

result in slightly different seat 

orientations when the seat interacts 

with the intruding door, which will 

affect the outcome of the test. NTSB 

concluded that testing all installation 

options would further ensure that CRSs 

provide adequate safety. 

NTSB further argued that, since the 

testing cost estimated by NHTSA is less 

than $0.01 per CRS, requiring 

manufacturers to conduct the same tests 

under three securement conditions— 

CRAS, Type 1 seat belts, and Type 2 

seat belts—would not be burdensome, 

and would be well worth the effort to 

ensure that the CRS provides the 

intended level of side impact protection, 

regardless of how it is attached to the 

vehicle. NTSB encouraged NHTSA to 

revise the proposed rule to require 

testing with the CRS attached to the 

SISA using the lower anchorage 

attachments, a Type 1 seat belt, and a 

Type 2 seat belt. 

In contrast to the above, IIHS and 

Graco stated that testing only with the 

CRAS configuration was sufficient. IIHS 

believed it was reasonable to forgo 

testing with lap and shoulder belts as 

NHTSA found no meaningful difference 

in performance in preliminary testing 

comparing CRSs attached with lower 

anchors with those attached with seat 

belts. Based on NHTSA’s results 

showing that Type 2 CRS installations 

perform the same as CRAS CRS 

installations, Graco recommended only 

testing with CRAS. 

Dorel did not expressly recommend 

CRAS or seat belt installation for testing, 

but provided data indicating CRAS 

testing showed little difference in the 

HIC and chest deflection data when 

compared to Type I (lap) tests.201

Agency Response 

After considering the comments and 

other information, NHTSA has decided 

there is a safety need to assess CRSs 

performance in a Type 2 belt test in 

addition to the CRAS test. Based on a 

review of the comments and an 

assessment of current CRS designs, 

NHTSA concludes that both tests are 

necessary to evaluate CRS performance 

properly, particularly regarding the 

structural integrity of the restraint when 

subjected to crash forces imposed on the 

restraint using the different loading 

paths. 

Among NHTSA’s preliminary tests for 

the NPRM 202 were four (4) paired tests 

to compare CRS performance when 

installed with lower anchors and with 

3-point (Type 2) seat belt. Paired 

comparisons showed that HIC15 and 

chest deflection results with the 

different installation methods were not 

significantly different (p>0.05), as seen 

in Table 19, below. 

TABLE 19—PAIRED TEST RESULTS FOR COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF CRSS INSTALLED USING LOWER ANCHORS

(LA ONLY) AND USING 3-POINT LAP-SHOULDER BELTS (SB3PT) 

Database 

test No. 

Dummy CRS Orientation Attachment 

method HIC15 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

Head-door 

contact 

9624 ... Q3S Graco Comfort Sport ...................................... RF Convertible ........... LA Only .... 729 26.9 Yes. 

9622 ... Q3S Graco Comfort Sport ...................................... RF Convertible ........... SB3PT ..... 793 23.1 Yes. 

8260 * Q3s Graco My Ride ............................................... RF Convertible ........... LA Only .... 751 25.0 No. 

8264 * Q3s Graco My Ride ............................................... RF Convertible ........... SB3PT ..... 681 31.0 No. 

8265 * Q3s Cosco Scenera ............................................... RF Convertible ........... LA Only .... 748 34.0 Yes. 

8266 * Q3s Cosco Scenera ............................................... RF Convertible ........... SB3PT ..... 748 28.0 Yes. 

9633 ... Q3S Graco Comfort Sport ...................................... FF Convertible ........... LA Only .... 579 23.0 Yes. 

9632 ... Q3S Graco Comfort Sport ...................................... FF Convertible ........... SB3PT ..... 649 19.1 Yes. 

8253 * Q3S Evanflo Chase ................................................ FF Converrible ........... LA Only .... 987 20 Yes. 

8257 * Q3S Evenflo Chase ................................................ FF Convertible ........... SB3PT ..... 784 25 Yes. 

8252 * Q3s Evenflo Triumph Advantage DLX ................... FF Combination ......... LA Only .... 446 16.0 No. 

8256 * Q3s Evenflo Triumph Advantage DLX ................... FF Combination ......... SB3PT ..... 479 13 No. 

8258 * 12MO Graco My Ride ............................................... RF Convertible ........... LA Only .... 755 N/A No. 

8261 * 12MO Graco My Ride ............................................... RF Convertible ........... SB3PT ..... 748 N/A No. 

9626 ... 12MO Combi Shuttle ................................................. RF Infant .................... LA Only .... 478 N/A Yes. 

9625 ... 12MO Combi Shuttle ................................................. RF Infant .................... SB3PT ..... 438 N/A Yes. 

9628 ... 12MO Safety 1st OnBoard 35 ................................... RF Infant .................... LA Only .... 625 N/A No. 

9627 ... 12MO Safety 1st OnBoard 35 ................................... RF Infant .................... SB3PT ..... 615 N/A No. 

8259 * 12MO Combi Shuttle ................................................. RF Infant .................... LA Only .... 450 N/A Yes. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39284 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

203ClickTight Installation Systems in Convertible 

Car Seats, Britax, https://web.archive.org/web/ 

20201201232308/https://us.britax.com/productknowledge/articles/clicktight-convertibles/. 

204NCRUSS found that 34% of rear-facing infant 

carriers, 23% of rear facing convertible and 44% of 

forward-facing CRSs were installed with seat belts. 205The NPRM also proposed to amend FMVSS 

No. 213 to require child restraints to meet the 

requirements of Standard No. 213 when attached by 

the Type 2 belt and to remove the requirement that 

CRSs must meet the standard when attached by a 

Type 1 (lap) belt. 

206A freely sliding belt anchor is a load bearing 

device through which the seat belt webbing may 

freely pass and change direction. The belt anchor 

is bolted to the SISA. The freely sliding belt anchor 

is similar in design and function to a guide loop 

used to properly position the torso portion of the 

webbing of a driver’s seat belt. 

TABLE 19—PAIRED TEST RESULTS FOR COMPARING THE PERFORMANCE OF CRSS INSTALLED USING LOWER ANCHORS

(LA ONLY) AND USING 3-POINT LAP-SHOULDER BELTS (SB3PT)—Continued 

Database 

test No. 

Dummy CRS Orientation Attachment 

method HIC15 

Chest 

deflection 

[mm] 

Head-door 

contact 

8262 * 12MO Combi Shuttle ................................................. RF Infant .................... SB3PT ..... 521 N/A Yes. 

* Preliminary tests from NPRM. 

Note: SB3PT means 3-point belt, LA Only means lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system, RF means rear-facing and FF means forward-facing. 

It was on those data that NHTSA 

made a preliminary determination that 

the differences in performance of the 

restraints were not significant based on 

the method of installation. However, 

NHTSA now agrees that testing a CRS 

in both installation modes (using CRAS 

and a Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belt) 

will more appropriately evaluate CRS 

performance, including structural 

integrity, under the different loading 

paths in a CRAS installation and in a 

seat belt installation. 

The agency agrees with the 

commenters supporting inclusion of a 

Type 2 belt attachment test that, while 

many CRSs share the same belt paths for 

lower anchorages and seat belt 

installations, there are some CRSs that 

do not (such as CRSs that use a rigid 

CRAS lower attachment or like the 

Britax Clicktight seats 203). Testing in 

both attachment modes is needed for a 

more effective evaluation of the side 

loading of the CRS in a side crash, as the 

different points of attachment of the 

CRS to the vehicle seat and the different 

routing paths of the vehicle seat belt 

through the CRS can affect how the CRS 

is loaded by the seat belt during the side 

impact event. 

NHTSA also agrees with commenters 

that testing with a Type 2 belt 

configuration is appropriate because of 

the CRAS weight restrictions. Under 

current FMVSS No. 213, child safety 

seats manufacturers must instruct 

owners not to use the CRAS lower 

anchors if the mass of the seat, 

combined with the mass of the child for 

whom the CRS is recommended, exceed 

29.5 kg (65 lb). Caregivers are instead 

instructed to use the vehicle’s belt 

system to install the CRS. As the 

provisions of FMVSS No. 213 envision 

Type 2 belt installations as vital to CRS 

installations, it is prudent for the agency 

to adopt a Type 2 belt test in FMVSS 

No. 213a to ensure all safety seats for 

children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 

lb) provide adequate side impact 

protection. Further, data show that a 

substantial portion of caregivers in the 

field use seat belts, rather than CRAS, to 

install CRSs.204 For the above reasons, 

adopting a Type 2 belt test in addition 

to a CRAS test best meets the MAP–21 

mandate to improve the protection of 

children seated in CRSs in side crashes. 

As to the type of belt system, NHTSA 

believes that just a Type 2 belt test is 

appropriate, not both a Type 1 belt (lap 

belt) test and a Type 2 belt test. NHTSA 

agrees with CU and Britax that a Type 

1 seat belt configuration is rare in the 

light passenger vehicle fleet and should 

not be adopted as a test configuration 

for lack of a safety need for such a test. 

In the November 2, 2021 NPRM 

upgrading the frontal impact sled test, 

NHTSA proposed to use a Type 2 seat 

belt instead of a Type 1 seat belt for the 

same reasons, i.e., Type 1 configurations 

are mostly unavailable in the vehicle 

fleet.205 Given the prevalence of Type 2 

belts in the rear seats of current 

passenger vehicles, testing CRSs with 

the type of seat belt caregivers would be 

using better ensures the 

representativeness of the compliance 

test. 

In supporting use of a Type 2 belt test, 

UPPAbaby also asked about a ‘‘carrier 

only configuration,’’ and suggested ‘‘this 

should be taken into account as a 

possible use situation, and added to the 

proposed rulemaking, again using a 

Type II [sic] belt configuration.’’ NHTSA 

understands the commenter as 

suggesting that FMVSS No. 213a should 

require infant carriers designed with a 

detachable base to be tested without 

their base in a Type 2 belt. The agency 

will test infant carriers with bases with 

CRAS and with a Type 2 belt, but, for 

now, the agency has decided not to test 

the carriers without their bases. The 

agency conducted two tests of infant 

carriers with no base (Evenflo Discovery 

and Combi Shuttle) and both showed no 

head to door contact. The agency has 

not conducted extensive testing on 

infant carriers without the base, but the 

testing suggests that infant carriers can 

meet the standard with and without a 

base. Thus, NHTSA does not find 

justification to add another test of the 

restraints to check performance of the 

carriers when the base is not used. 

The drawings for the SISA that were 

placed in the docket for the NPRM show 

the proposed Type 2 seat belt 

configuration. The final version of the 

drawings incorporated by reference by 

this final rule also depict the Type 2 

seat belt anchorages. 

MGA commented that the NPRM did 

not include provisions about the 

configuration of the belt anchor on the 

inboard side of the lap belt of the Type 

2 belt for Type 2 installation 

configurations. MGA stated that FMVSS 

No. 213 requires the belt anchor to lock 

the belt, while a similar Transport 

Canada standard (Canadian Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213) 

incorporates a freely-sliding belt 

anchor.206 MGA argued that, since most 

vehicles in the fleet have a free-sliding 

belt buckle tongue on the inboard side, 

it makes more sense to replicate this 

condition. MGA suggested that, if the 

Type 2 belt in FMVSS No. 213a were to 

have a freely-sliding belt anchor, 

FMVSS No. 213 should be updated in 

the future as well. 

The final drawing package of the SISA 

details the design of the belt anchorages 

and hardware used in the Type 2 seat 

belt installations, as they will be part of 

the FMVSS No. 213a configuration. The 

final drawing package incorporates an 

inboard freely sliding belt anchor as 

suggested by MGA, to replicate realworld conditions. Most vehicles in the 

fleet have a freely sliding belt anchor. 

The proposed changes to FMVSS No. 

213 (frontal sled test) set forth in the 

November 2, 2020 NPRM also describe 

an inboard freely sliding belt anchor. 

NHTSA is currently considering the 

comments to the November 2, 2020 

NPRM. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39285 

207A more stringent head excursion requirement 

applies in the test in which the tether is attached. 

208Citing Cicchino & Jermakian 2014, Decina & 

Lococo 2007, Eichelberger et al. 2014, Jermakian & 

Wells 2011, O’Neil et al. 2011. 

209Citing Kapoor et al. 2011, Lumley 1997, 

Menon & Ghati 2007. 

210SRN attributed this assertion to NHTSA but 

the statement is not in the NPRM. 211NHTSA–2014–0012–0045, at pg. 6. 

ii. Tethered vs. Non-Tethered CRS 

Installation 

The NPRM proposed that the agency 

would attach the top tether of the safety 

seat if a tether were provided and the 

owner’s manual instructs the caregiver 

to attach it. 

Comments on whether the top tether 

should be attached during testing were 

mixed. Some commenters suggested that 

testing without the top tether would be 

representative of real-world CRS 

installation in vehicles, as only about 

half of CRSs are installed using the top 

tether. Other commenters recommended 

testing with the tether, notwithstanding 

real-world use of the tether. Those 

commenters generally supported use of 

informational and educational 

campaigns to encourage tether use. 

Some commenters recommended testing 

both with and without the top tether 

attached, as is done under the frontal 

impact test of FMVSS No. 213.207

After considering the comments, 

NHTSA has decided to adopt the 

proposed procedure to test forwardfacing CRSs with the tether attached, as 

test results showed that the use or nonuse of the tether does not produce 

significantly different results in the side 

impact test environment. Each 

installation issue is discussed in turn 

below. 

Comments Received 

Many commenters recommended 

testing forward-facing CRSs without the 

top tether attached. These included 

IIHS, UMTRI, Safekids, and SRN. 

Several proponents of an untethered test 

pointed to studies showing that tether 

use is low. IIHS discussed that 

observational surveys have found that 

about half of all forward-facing CRSs are 

installed without using the top tether 208

and that the dynamic performance of 

CRSs changes when the top tether is 

used.209 IIHS stated that because tether 

non-use is common in the field, 

dynamic testing of CRSs should include 

a no-tether condition to ensure any 

countermeasures developed as part of 

the testing program would be effective 

at reducing injuries under those 

circumstances. SRN stated that, if the 

tether makes little difference in a nearside impact as had been asserted, it is 

necessary to know more about the 

relative effectiveness between both 

installation methods.210 SRN also 

wanted to know if the conclusion that 

the tether has little effect in 

performance on a near-side impact was 

made based on comparison testing done 

with tether anchors mounted in 

different locations. SRN believed if 

there is truly no benefit provided by the 

tether in a side impact, then it suggests 

adopting an untethered test. 

Some commenters suggested both a 

tethered and untethered test. Mr. 

Hauschild suggested that for seats that 

have a tether, they should be tested both 

with and without the tether. The 

commenter explained that consumers 

are likely to use the CRS both ways, 

there may be different kinematics of the 

dummy, and that many older vehicles 

still on the road today may not have an 

upper anchor for the tether. Advocates 

recommended that each CRS be 

required to pass the proposed testing 

under all installation conditions 

permitted by the manufacturer for the 

specific restraint. 

In contrast to the above, CU, NTSB, 

Dorel, Britax, Graco, and JPMA 

recommended testing with the tether 

attached. CU supported the use of the 

top tether for testing all forward-facing 

CRSs, stating that the tethers provide 

benefits in stabilizing and reducing 

head excursion in frontal crashes, and 

that additional education and 

information should be extended to 

encourage tether use. CU stated that its 

frontal test protocol plans to test all 

forward-facing CRSs with top tethers 

attached. 

NTSB noted that the current correct 

usage rate for the top tether is low— 

approximately 59 percent—in passenger 

vehicles, minivans, light trucks, and 

sport utility vehicles. NTSB agreed that 

forward-facing CRSs should be tested 

with the top tether, as recommended by 

the manufacturer, but urged NHTSA to 

encourage both vehicle and CRS 

manufacturers to increase the ease of 

use for top tethers. Dorel supported the 

requirement that the top tether be 

attached during the side impact test. 

Dorel stated that their data showed little 

difference between struck near side 

ATD data between tethered and 

untethered tests. Dorel added that the 

inclusion of untethered tests may not 

provide additional meaningful 

information of the contact-side of the 

test configuration and the resulting HIC 

scores. 

Britax also supported the use of 

tethers during side impact testing. 

Britax explained that, similar to the 

effect of deep side wings and impact 

absorbing foam, the use of the tether 

enhances the performance of the CRS 

during side impact by reducing the 

lateral movement of the CRS, and this 

reduction in lateral movement assists in 

containing the head within the CRS. 

Britax stated that requiring side impact 

testing without the use of the tether 

would unreasonably deny CRS 

manufacturers the benefits of tether 

technology, as opposed to frontal impact 

testing of CRS (where the CRS is tested 

with and without the tether), especially 

in the context of the unique lateral 

forces generated in the side impact 

testing protocol. Britax concluded that 

using the tether diminishes the potential 

for head injury. 

Dorel and JPMA commented that they 

did not see any relationship between 

HIC15 scores in paired tests of two CRS 

models installed using CRAS (with 

tether) and with a Type I seat belt 

without the tether attached.211 Graco 

stated that it always recommends the 

use of the top tether when installing a 

forward-facing CRS. Graco added that it 

does not believe there is any benefit in 

conducting the side impact test both 

with and without the top tether. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA performed two paired tests to 

evaluate the effect of the use of the 

tether in the proposed side impact test. 

Two tests were performed using the 

tether and two without the tether, as 

shown in Table 20. Paired comparisons 

showed that the tests results (HIC and 

chest deflection) with and without 

tether were not significantly different 

(p>0.05). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39286 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

212 In response to MAP–21, on January 23, 2015, 

NHTSA published an NPRM to improve the 

usability of child restraint anchorage systems, 

including standardizing and clarifying the marking 

of tether anchorages (80 FR 3744). The RIN for the 

rulemaking is 2127–AL20. It may be tracked in the 

Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions (Agenda). 

213 80 FR 3744 (Jan. 23, 2015). 

TABLE 20—COMPARISON OF CRS PERFORMANCE IN TESTS OF CRSS INSTALLED WITH AND WITHOUT TETHER WITH THE

Q3S DUMMY

VDB test No. CRS Orientation Attachment method HIC 15 Chest deflection 

[mm] Contact 

9630 ............... Graco Comfort 

Sport.

FF Convertible ....... CRAS .................... 640 21.1 Yes. 

9631 ............... Graco Comfort 

Sport.

FF Convertible ....... SB3PT&T .............. 580 18.6 Yes. 

9633 ............... Graco Comfort 

Sport.

FF Convertible ....... LA Only ................. 579 23.0 Yes. 

9632 ............... Graco Comfort 

Sport.

FF Convertible ....... SB3PT ................... 649 19.1 Yes. 

Note: SB3PT means 3-point belt, SB3PT&T means 3-point seat belt and tether, CRAS means the full child restraint anchorage system, LA 

Only means lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system, and FF means forward-facing. 

While tether use is extremely 

important in frontal crashes, in nearside impacts the impact happens so 

quickly that the tether is never engaged 

as the struck vehicle door intrudes into 

the seat compartment. Due to this fact, 

and the results in the above table 

showing that the use or non-use of the 

tether does not produce significantly 

different results in the FMVSS No. 213a 

side impact test environment, NHTSA 

will test forward-facing CRSs with the 

tether attached. 

Testing forward-facing CRSs with the 

tether attached will help minimize any 

potential variability in test results due 

to setting up the CRS while allowing a 

thorough evaluation in side impact of 

all countermeasures provided by the 

CRS. Testing with and without tether, as 

suggested by some commenters, would 

be unnecessarily burdensome as the 

CRS would perform the same way in 

both tests. Since the performance of the 

CRS when installed with or without the 

tether is not significantly different, the 

test still ensures good performance in 

the field even when tether use is low. 

NHTSA notes that frontal sled tests of 

forward-facing CRSs with and without 

tether have different performance as the 

use of a tether results in improved 

injury values compared to the untethered tests. Therefore, the need of 

testing in both conditions is necessary 

to ensure their performance at two 

different stringency levels (i.e. head 

excursions 813 mm for untethered test 

and 720 mm for tethered test) in a 

frontal impact and ensure the safety of 

the CRS whether they are used with or 

without the tether. While the top tether 

is used, if available, during the side 

impact test procedure, in forward-facing 

CRSs, this does not negate in any way 

the need to meet frontal requirements, 

both with and without a tether. 

Separate from this rulemaking, and as 

discussed further below, the agency is 

currently working on potential 

improvements in tether use by 

improving the marking of tether 

anchorages in vehicles.212 The purpose 

of the marking is to increase consumer 

awareness of the existence of tether 

anchorages and to facilitate consumer 

education efforts. 

With respect to SRN’s request to 

conduct tests with tethers mounted in 

different locations, NHTSA selected the 

tether location on the SISA based on the 

vehicle survey. Thus, it is highly 

representative of where tether 

anchorages are located in vehicles. 

Since tether use or non-use does not 

affect the performance of the CRS in the 

side impact test, the agency believes the 

tether anchorage position will not 

influence the performance of the CRS in 

the near-side impact environment 

selected for FMVSS No. 213a. Thus, 

there is insufficient need to vary the 

location of the anchorage in the test. 

NTSB urged NHTSA to encourage 

both vehicle and CRS manufacturers to 

increase the ease-of-use of top tethers. 

NHTSA’s January 23, 2015 NPRM, 

supra, proposed to amend FMVSS No. 

225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage 

systems,’’ to improve the ease-of-use of 

the lower anchorages of child restraint 

anchorage systems and the ease-of-use 

of tether anchorages.213 The NPRM also 

proposed changes to FMVSS No. 213, 

‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to amend 

labeling and other requirements to 

improve the ease-of-use of child 

restraint systems with a vehicle 

anchorage system. The NPRM, issued in 

response to MAP–21, proposed changes 

to Standards No. 213 and 225 to 

increase the correct use of CRSs and 

child restraint anchorage systems and 

tether anchorages, with the ultimate 

goal of reducing injuries and fatalities to 

restrained children in motor vehicle 

crashes. NHTSA is continuing its work 

on this rulemaking. The Fall 2021 

Agenda notes that a final rule is planned 

for March 2022. 

iii. Distance Between Edge of Armrest 

and Edge of Seat 

NHTSA proposed to specify in the 

test procedure that: (a) the CRS would 

be centered on the sliding seat; and (b) 

that the front face of the armrest on the 

door would be approximately 32 mm 

(about 1.25 inches) from the edge of the 

sliding seat towards the CRS at the time 

the honeycomb interacts with the 

sliding seat structure. The prescribed 

positions of the CRS (centered 300 mm 

(about 12 inches) from the edge of the 

seat), and the armrest from the edge of 

the seat at the time the door first 

interacts with the sliding seat structure, 

results in the intruding door contacting 

wider CRSs earlier in the event than 

narrower CRS. This contact of the 

intruding door earlier in the event to 

wider CRSs results in a higher door 

impact velocity to the wider CRSs than 

to narrower CRSs, which is an outcome 

representative of how different CRS 

designs would perform in a specific 

vehicle in the real world. On the other 

hand, NHTSA sought comment on 

whether the distance of the front face of 

the armrest from the edge of the sliding 

seat at the time the sliding seat starts to 

accelerate should be varied, such that 

all CRSs, regardless of their width, 

would contact the impacting door at the 

same time and with the same initial 

impact speed. 

Comments Received 

Comments were divided on this issue. 

Advocates recommended that the 

distance between the CRS and the 

armrest be varied so that all CRSs, 

regardless of their width, contact the 

impacting door at the same time and 

with the same initial impact speed. 

Advocates stated that since the premise 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39287 

214NHTSA–2014–0012–0045, at pg. 6. 

215NHTSA understands this comment to be 

stating, in this context, narrower CRSs would be in 

contact (couple) with the door/armrest at a lower 

velocity than a wider one, as a wider one will come 

in contact with the door/armrest sooner. While CRS 

to door/armrest contact is happening, the velocity 

is decreasing so the velocity that a narrower CRS 

experiences is lower than a wide one. 

216Seat orientation reference line means the 

horizontal line through Point Z as illustrated in 

Figure 1 of the regulatory text section of this final 

rule. 

of the proposed testing is a component 

level test of the CRS (rather than the 

CRS and a given vehicle combination, as 

in a full-scale test), this change would 

ensure that all CRSs are subject to the 

same conditions. The commenter 

believed that, given the wide range of 

vehicle designs in which a CRS may be 

installed, artificially allowing CRS 

design specifications, such as width, to 

influence the conditions of the test 

would be inappropriate. Advocates 

suggested that NHTSA establish a 

reasonable specified distance between 

the armrest and CRS through a vehicle 

survey and by testing. The distance 

should represent the most common and 

most appropriate distance for the test 

protocol, while also providing the most 

stringent performance test for CRSs in 

use today. 

Dorel and JPMA commented that both 

approaches (keeping the distance 

constant, or varying the distance to 

account for CRS width) each have their 

unique conditions for introducing 

variability into the test, which can drive 

CRS designs to be either wide or narrow 

to obtain the best HIC measures. In 

support of this statement, Dorel 

provided a chart comparing wide and 

narrow forward-facing (FF) CRSs 

installed with lower anchorages of the 

CRAS and tethered, or with a belt and 

untethered. These tests kept a constant 

distance of the front face of the armrest 

from the edge of the seat at T0. In the 

tests, the wider CRS had lower chest 

deflection results compared to the 

narrower CRS.214

Dorel and JPMA believed that keeping 

the distance constant from the front face 

of the armrest from the edge of the seat 

at the time the sliding seat starts to 

accelerate, as proposed, could more 

accurately reflect the consistent 

centering of the seating position 

between the anchors to the door. Dorel 

and JPMA explained that this also 

naturally aligns the center of the ATD 

with the center of the anchorages as 

well and the ATD’s distance to the door, 

and that it could drive CRS designs to 

optimize on this condition, which 

would favor wider CRS designs. Dorel 

added that the ATD forward head 

movement discussed in its comment 

also enters more prominently in this 

condition. Dorel also commented that 

the distance between the armrest and 

the CRS has the potential to catch the 

door during the run up in acceleration 

phase very differently, which could 

result in manufacturers developing 

narrower CRSs as they would couple 

sooner in the event at a lower 

velocity.215

Dorel stated that the second option 

(distance varied) is a more stable and 

repeatable condition, while option 1 

(distance kept constant) would 

introduce significant differences in 

testing conditions. Dorel stated that the 

test should replicate conditions that 

would drive CRS designs to yield 

meaningful and measurable 

countermeasures to side impact injury 

mechanisms. Dorel concluded the test 

must replicate real world conditions. 

CU commented that the distance of 

the front face of the armrest from the 

edge of the seat at the time the sliding 

seat starts to accelerate should be kept 

constant. CU explained that, unlike in a 

frontal crash, prior to which the front 

seatbacks can be moved to provide 

additional spacing for a CRS, the 

distance to a door in an actual vehicle 

will be fixed and cannot be altered. For 

this reason, CU recommended leaving 

the door/armrest at a fixed distance. CU 

stated that the width of CRSs would 

determine the point and velocity at 

contact with that door, which would 

best simulate that same condition in a 

real vehicle crash. In contrast, CU stated 

that a distance that is altered to be equal 

for all CRSs would not simulate such 

real-world conditions. 

UMTRI favored the proposed test 

condition that all child restraints be 

placed on the same pretest location on 

the bench, such that the loading panel 

will contact wider child restraints 

before it would contact narrow ones, as 

this represents a realistic vehicle 

situation. UMTRI added that this may 

encourage child restraint manufacturers 

to design narrower seats that would fit 

better in adjacent vehicle seating 

positions. 

Britax also recommended that the 

distance not be varied such that all 

CRSs regardless of width contact the 

door within similar time and velocity 

requirements. Britax explained that 

varying the distance defeats the purpose 

and benefits of ‘‘filling the gap’’ and 

would discourage the use of impact 

technologies that may result in CRSs 

that enhance side impact energy 

management. Britax stated that this 

would serve the contrary purpose of 

enabling CRS with less energy 

management features to compare 

favorably with products that provide 

otherwise. 

Graco also recommended using a 

constant CRS centerline position, as 

proposed, regardless of the CRS base 

width. Graco requested NHTSA 

consider adding a recommended 

method for confirming that the CRS is 

centered, such as a visual indicator on 

the sliding seat to which the CRS can be 

aligned, to increase repeatability of the 

test. 

As discussed in a previous section, 

JPMA pointed out that there is an 

inconsistency between the NPRM’s 

specification for the door foam 

thickness (51 mm) and the NHTSA 

drawing package specification (55 mm). 

JPMA states that this difference in foam 

thickness specification is significant 

because ‘‘the NPRM includes set-up 

distances from the face of the door panel 

to the face of honeycomb material and 

from the face of the honeycomb material 

to the centerline of the sliding seat 

[sic].’’ JPMA explained that the 

thickness of the foam is thus an 

important part of these set-up 

relationships and needs to be the same 

in the final rule and the drawing 

package to help ensure consistent test 

results between test facilities. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA believes that having a fixed 

distance from the front face of the 

armrest to the edge of the seat towards 

the seat orientation reference line 

(SORL) 216 is the appropriate 

configuration to test CRSs in a side 

impact. First, NHTSA believes that 

having a fixed distance at the time of 

impact is more representative of the 

real-world vehicle environment than 

using a varying distance. All CRSs will 

not be impacted by the door at the same 

time, as vehicle designs vary and a 

wider CRS will be impacted by the side 

door before a narrow CRS in the same 

vehicle. Maintaining a fixed position of 

the armrest with respect to the edge of 

the sliding seat at the time of initial 

impact of the door assembly with the 

sliding seat will encourage 

manufacturers to take into account the 

width of their safety seats in designing 

countermeasures to meet FMVSS No. 

213a, as the door will impact wider 

CRSs at a higher velocity than narrower 

CRSs in the test, as it will in the real 

world. 

Second, a fixed distance works well 

in a representative generic vehicle 

environment like the SISA. The FMVSS 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39288 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

217Louden & Wietholter (2022). 218This issue of the discrepancy in the door and 

armrest foam thickness is discussed previously in 

the preamble in the section on door characteristics. 

No. 213 frontal impact sled test also 

uses a representative generic vehicle 

environment for the test, and fixed 

distances are used to assess the 

performance of the CRS in the frontal 

impact. In the frontal test, the head and 

knee excursion limits are fixed with 

respect to references on the frontal 

standard seat assembly regardless of the 

initial head and knee position of the 

dummy. Fixing the excursion limits 

presents a simplified test environment 

in which CRS manufacturers can design 

thinner, thicker, or backless products 

that position the head and knee of the 

test dummies at different fore/aft 

positions and use countermeasures 

appropriate for their CRS to retain the 

head and knees within the test envelop. 

Some CRSs will position the head and 

knee closer to the excursion limits, 

others might choose to design a thinner 

back to position the head and knees 

further away. The fixed excursion limit 

does not vary with respect to the 

different CRS design and provides 

certainty in the parameters of the test 

environment. On the SISA, the fixed 

distance will provide manufacturers the 

ability to decide whether to make 

narrow CRSs so they are tested at a 

slightly lower speed or wider by adding 

different energy absorbing technologies 

of their choice. Similarly, the window 

sill height of the SISA, which represents 

a generic vehicle in the fleet, is fixed 

and does not change based on the head 

position of the child dummy in a 

particular CRS. CRS manufacturers may 

optimize their design that work best 

with their side impact technologies. 

As Dorel commented, both methods 

(fixed versus variable distance) have 

different challenges and difficulties in 

setup. NHTSA believes that varying the 

distance between the armrest and the 

edge of the sliding seat would introduce 

more variability into the system as the 

door fixture or the anchorage locations 

would have to be movable to achieve a 

variable armrest/edge of sliding seat 

distance to achieve a CRS to door 

impact at the same time in all CRSs. 

Thus, the reduced risk of variability is 

an advantage of the fixed distance 

approach over the alternative. 

Graco requested NHTSA consider 

adding a recommended method for 

confirming that the CRS is centered to 

increase test repeatability. As described 

further in the report FMVSS No. 213 

Side Impact Test Evaluation and 

Revision,217 NHTSA used FARO arm 

measurements in its sled tests to record 

and align the CRS and dummy with the 

SISA’s SORL. The agency’s OVSC 

compliance test procedure will provide 

the method that NHTSA will use to 

center the CRS in the SISA for 

compliance testing. 

JPMA pointed out that because of the 

inconsistency between the door and arm 

rest foam thicknesses specifications in 

the drawing package and the 

specifications in the NPRM,218 the setup distance from the face of the door 

panel to the face of honeycomb material 

is also inconsistent from that specified 

in the NPRM. The NPRM specified that 

the distance of the front face of the 

armrest on the door from the edge of the 

bench seat at the time of contact of the 

door assembly with the sliding seat of 

the side impact seat assembly (T0) (or 

setup distance for this discussion) is 32 

mm. We agree that the 32 mm setup 

distance proposed in the NPRM 

regulatory text is incorrect because it 

was computed using the manufacturer 

quoted nominal door foam thickness 

and not the measured thickness 

(discussed in a previous section of this 

final rule preamble). The correct setup 

distance computed using the measured 

foam thickness is 38 mm. 

NHTSA conducted side impact tests 

on the SISA to determine the effect of 

variability in the setup distance on the 

performance measures. NHTSA tested 

two CRS models (one in forward-facing 

configuration and the other in rearfacing configuration) on the SISA using 

3 different setup distances. Table 22 

shows that even with 12 to 14 mm 

variation in the setup distance the CV 

values of the performance measures are 

very low and in the ‘‘excellent’’ 

repeatability range. These results 

suggest that 12 to 14 mm variation in 

the setup distance does not have 

significant effect on the performance 

measures. 

TABLE 22—TEST RESULTS FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF VARIATION IN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FRONT FACE OF

THE ARMREST TO THE FRONT FACE OF THE HONEYCOMB

Test No. ATD CRS Orientation Restraint type Setup distance 

[mm] HIC 15 Chest deflection [mm] 

10285 ............. Q3s Graco 

Size4Me 65.

RF Convertible LA Only .......... 37 751 20.7 

10116 ............. 33 778 23.5 

10286 ............. 47 754 23.3 

Average 761.2 22.53 

STD Dev 12.25 1.27 

CV % 2 6 

10277 ............. Q3s Evenflo Tribute.FF Convertible CRAS ............. 34 712 21.3 

10101 ............. 42 760 20.8 

10278 ............. 46 732 22.0 

Average 734.5 21.4 

STD Dev 19.9 0.48 

CV % 3 2 

Note: CRAS means the full child restraint anchorage system, LA Only means lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system, and 

FF means forward-facing. 

Based on these test results, the agency 

is revising the tolerance for the setup 

distance from ±2 mm to ±6 mm. 

Therefore, this final rule revises the 

specified distance of the front face of the 

armrest on the door from the edge of the 

bench seat at the time of contact of the 

door assembly with the sliding seat (T0) 

to 38 ± 6 mm. This measurement is 

consistent with the final drawing 

package and addresses the errors in the 

NPRM and proposed drawing package. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39289 

219See Louden & Wietholter (2022) for more 

details. 

e. Dummy Positioning 

Arm Placement 

NHTSA performed a series of tests for 

the NPRM to evaluate CRS performance 

with the Q3s dummy, as discussed 

below. In the tests, NHTSA observed, 

with regard to dummy positioning, that 

chest displacements of the Q3s, tested 

in the same CRS model, were higher 

when the dummy’s arm was positioned 

in line with the thorax than when the 

arm was rotated upward so as to expose 

the thorax to direct contact with the 

intruding door. NHTSA proposed an 

arm position at 25 degrees with respect 

to the thorax, and noted that the Q3s 

dummy’s shoulder contains a detent to 

aid in this positioning. NHTSA 

requested comment on this arm 

position. 

Comments Received 

We received many comments 

supportive of arm positioning. Dorel 

supported the inclusion of an arm 

positioning specification, stating that it 

provides additional consistency of setup 

conditions for repeatability and 

reproducibility. Graco stated that it has 

determined that the IR–TRACC 

measurement (for chest deflection) can 

change significantly as a function of arm 

placement. Graco recommended 

improving the variation in the Q3s chest 

deflection measurements. It suggested 

that a large range (10 mm) it found in 

chest deflection was due to inconsistent 

arm placement, and that a more defined 

set-up practice may reduce these 

differences. Similarly, TRL commented 

that the pre-test position of the arm can 

have a significant effect on the dummy 

chest deflection readings, and that care 

should be taken to install the dummy as 

described in the installation procedure 

of Standard No. 213a to ensure 

consistent test results. Advocates stated 

that the agency should establish an arm 

position which correlates best with the 

real-world positioning of children in 

CRS and injury frequencies observed in 

available crash data. 

Agency Response 

The final test procedure specifies that 

each of the dummy’s arms be rotated 

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, as proposed 

in the NPRM. This final rule specifies 

that the agency will position the lower 

portion of the Q3s arm to be as aligned 

as possible to the upper arm (25- 

degrees) that is determined by the 

detent. If there is interference of the arm 

with the CRS or dummy body, the lower 

arm can be slightly bent. VRTC achieved 

good repeatability with this test 

procedure it developed.219

In response to Advocates, NHTSA is 

not aware of data that correlates arm 

position with injury data. However, we 

believe the arm in the down position 

would not be an unrealistic positioning 

of the arm. 

Leg Placement 

In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that, 

when testing with the Q3s dummy in a 

rear-facing CRS, the legs of the dummy 

were extended upwards and rotated 

down until they were in contact with 

the SISA seat back. NHTSA requested 

comment on the position of the Q3s 

dummy legs when testing rear-facing 

CRSs with that dummy. 

Comment Received 

Graco requested that NHTSA specify 

whether to remove the knee stop bolts 

when using the Q3s in a rear-facing seat. 

It explained that currently, testing 

practices vary between test facilities and 

should be standardized for consistency. 

Graco stated no structural damage 

occurred in its tests when it did not 

remove the knee stop. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA will not remove the knee stop 

bolts when using the Q3s dummy in a 

rear-facing seat. In the November 2, 

2020 NPRM to update the frontal sled 

test in FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA 

proposed a procedure calling for the 

removal of the knee stop in the Hybrid 

III (HIII) 3-year-old dummy when used 

in rear-facing CRSs. In tests of rearfacing CRSs with the HIII–3-year-old 

dummy, the stiff seated pelvis of the 

dummy causes the dummy’s legs to 

brace against the seat back, resulting in 

a forward load on the CRS that could 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.016</GPH>
39290 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

220 85 FR 69388, supra. See Section IX, 85 FR 

69429. 

221 85 FR at 69436. 222Consumer Union is the Policy and Action 

Division of Consumer Reports. 

push the CRS forward. The agency 

sought to remove the knee-stops to 

prevent such bracing of the HIII–3-yearold dummy’s legs against the seat back. 

In contrast, the Q3s dummy has more 

flexibility in the pelvic joint than the 

HIII dummy, which allows the 

positioning of the legs of the Q3s 

without the removal of the knee stop. 

This final rule specifies that each of the 

dummy’s legs be rotated downwards in 

the plane parallel to the dummy’s 

midsagittal plane until the limb contacts 

a surface of the child restraint or the 

SISA. f. Dummy selection 

The January 2014 NPRM proposed 

using the Q3s dummy and the CRABI 

12-month-old dummy to test CRSs 

under the side impact requirements. 

Specifically, the NPRM proposed using 

the Q3s to test CRSs designed for 

children weighing 10 kg to 18.1 kg (22 

lb to 40 lb), and using the CRABI 12- 

month-old to test CRSs designed for 

children weighing up to 10 kg (22 lb). 

These weight categories were designed 

to be consistent with the criteria used in 

the current FMVSS No. 213 in 

determining the test dummies that are 

used to test child restraints to the 

standard’s frontal test requirements. 

In NHTSA’s November 2, 2020 NPRM 

proposing updates to FMVSS No. 213, 

NHTSA proposed changes to those 

criteria.220 The November 2020 NPRM 

proposed that the Hybrid III 3-year-old 

test dummy used in FMVSS No. 213 

would only be used to test CRSs 

designed for children weighing 13.6 to 

18.1 kg (30–40 lb), and that the 12- 

month-old CRABI would be used to test 

CRSs designed for children weighing up 

to 13.6 kg (30 lb). The agency proposed 

the change after tentatively concluding 

that the 3-year-old dummy does not 

adequately fit CRSs rated for children 

weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb), 

and does not properly represent the 

children for whom the restraints are 

intended. The November 2020 frontal 

upgrade NPRM noted that the 2014 side 

impact NPRM sought to align the weight 

cut offs for dummy selection with that 

of FMVSS No. 213. The November 2020 

NPRM requested comment on using the 

Q3s 3-year-old dummy to test CRSs 

designed for children weighing 13.6 to 

18.1 kg (30–40 lb) in the side impact test 

and using the CRABI–12MO to test 

CRSs designed for children weighing up 

to 13.6 kg (30 lb).221

Comments Received 

In response to the 2014 side impact 

NPRM, CU commented that, based on 

its understanding of the proposed rule 

(specifically S7.1(b) of proposed FMVSS 

No. 213a), the agency would use the Q3s 

to test infant seats. CU disagreed with 

this proposal, stating that evaluating the 

side impact performance of infant seats 

using the Q3s dummy is likely to 

misrepresent those seats’ protective 

features, as the Q3s is technically too 

tall for those seats. CU was concerned 

that, with the dummy’s head extended 

far above the seat’s shell, side impact 

protection within the shell will not 

‘‘register’’ in the dummy’s measured 

head dynamics. Based on its limited 

tests, CU observed that the Q3s head 

exceeding the shell height may result in 

decreased HIC values, thereby 

‘‘overrating’’ the seat’s side impact 

protection. CU stated that this potential 

to achieve lower HIC numbers could 

influence manufacturers to ‘‘design for 

the test’’ rather than for real-world child 

and CRS interactions, which could have 

negative implications. For instance, 

manufacturers could reduce shell 

heights or containment attributes, which 

could improve side impact regulatory 

test results but potentially reduce 

performance in real-world crashes. 

CU stated that NHTSA may not have 

seen this interaction issue with the Q3s 

and infant seats, as the test development 

results discussed in the NPRM indicated 

that the rear-facing seats tested with the 

Q3s were all convertible seats, not 

infant seats. Infant seats were only 

tested in NHTSA’s tests with the CRABI 

12-month-old dummy, even though the 

current child seat market includes 

infant seats that would meet the NPRM 

test thresholds requiring the Q3s (S7.1). 

The commenter did not believe the side 

impact pulse produces a level of energy 

that will result in a high number of 

structural failures and stated that, given 

the Q3s dummy size and limited 

potential for assessing structural failure, 

the Q3s dummy has little value for 

assessing side impact protection in 

infant seats. CU said that, in its own test 

methodology, it uses larger-weight 

dummies that may exceed shell 

accommodations to evaluate the 

structural integrity of seats, rather than 

injury metrics. CU believes an 

alternative side impact instrumented 

dummy should be considered for infant 

seat testing that would more 

appropriately represent real-world usage 

and provide biofidelic injury values. 

Similarly, UPPAbaby recommended 

against using the Q3s dummy to test 

rear-facing infant seats, because, it 

stated, ‘‘the head of the Q3s exceeds the 

limit to which we recommend a child be 

positioned in our seat.’’ 

Comments to the November 2, 2020 

frontal upgrade NPRM supported the 

proposed dummy selection weight and 

height criteria and the alignment of the 

applicable dummy selection for both 

frontal and side impact tests. Four 

commenters (IMMI, Salem-Keiser, Graco 

and Volvo) supported the proposed 

dummy selection changes. Two 

commenters (Safe Ride News and Graco) 

expressed support for having the same 

dummy selection criteria in both 

standards. Consumer Reports 222 (CR) 

reiterated its comment to the side 

impact NPRM (summarized above) 

where it argued that the CRABI–12 MO 

should be used to evaluate infant CRSs 

with recommended weights over 30 

pounds as the 3-year-old dummies are 

too big for these CRSs. 

Agency Response 

To better align the dummy selection 

for the side impact test with the size and 

weight of children typically restrained 

in the CRS, this final rule adopts the use 

of the CRABI–12-month-old to test CRSs 

designed for children weighing up to 

13.6 kg (30 lb) and that of the Q3s (3- 

year-old dummy) to test CRSs designed 

for children weighing 13.6 to 18.1 kg (30 

to 40 lb). These specifications are 

aligned with the proposed ranges for the 

FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact test in 

the November 2, 2020 NPRM. Table 23 

below shows the ATD use adopted for 

the side impact test based on the child 

weight and height recommendation for 

the CRS. 

TABLE 23—AMENDMENTS TO ATD USE BASED ON MANUFACTURER’S WEIGHT AND HEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS

[Adopted by this final rule] 

CRS recommended for use by children of these weights and heights— Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs (subparts refer to 

49 CFR part 572) 

5 kg (11 lb) to 13.6 kg (30 lb) in weight; 650 mm (25.5 inches) to 870 

mm (34.3 inches) in height.

CRABI–12-Month-Old (subpart R). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39291 

223An average 97th percentile 1-year-old is 12.3 

kg (27.2 lb). 

224An average 97th percentile 2-year-old is 15.3 

kg (33.9 lb). 225The test procedure set forth in FMVSS No. 

213a describes the procedure NHTSA will use to 

conduct its compliance test. NHTSA’s Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) issues a Test 

Procedure (TP) that provides more detailed 

information to its contractors about running the 

compliance test. However, under the Safety Act, 

manufacturers self-certify the compliance of their 

vehicles and equipment with all applicable 

FMVSSs; they are not required by NHTSA to 

conduct the test described in the FMVSS or TP to 

certify the compliance of their products with the 

FMVSS. Instead, manufacturers must ensure that, 

when NHTSA conducts the test described in the 

standard and TP, the vehicle or equipment will 

meet the requirements in the standards. While not 

required to do so, manufacturers generally selfcertify their products by using the test procedures 

set forth in the FMVSSs and TPs. This is because 

running the same test better ensures that the vehicle 

or equipment will perform in a manner that meets 

the FMVSSs requirements when tested by NHTSA, 

compared to a different test the manufacturer had 

used to make the certification. 

226Louden & Wietholter (2022), supra. 227 VRTC’s onboard camera fixtures are not part 

of the drawing package, as test facilities are not 

required to use cameras. If they use cameras, they 

may choose to use onboard or off-board cameras 

with the same views (or any other position of their 

choosing). 

TABLE 23—AMENDMENTS TO ATD USE BASED ON MANUFACTURER’S WEIGHT AND HEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS— 

Continued 

[Adopted by this final rule] 

CRS recommended for use by children of these weights and heights— Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs (subparts refer to 

49 CFR part 572) 

Weight 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18.1 kg (40 lb); Height 870 mm (34.3 inches) 

to 1100 mm (43.3 inches).

Q3s 3-Year-Old Child Dummy (subpart W). 

The changes in weight and height 

dummy selection criteria address 

Consumers Union (Consumer Reports) 

and UPPAbaby’s concerns that testing 

infant seats with the Q3s dummy would 

position the dummy’s head higher than 

the manufacturer’s recommended use of 

the restraint. In the November 2, 2020 

frontal upgrade NPRM, NHTSA 

explained that the current CRS market 

encompasses infant carrier models 

recommended for children weighing up 

to 10 kg (22 lb), 13.6 kg (30 lb), 15.8 kg 

(35 lb), and 18.1 kg (40 lb) and with 

child height limits ranging from 736 mm 

(29 inches) to 889 mm (35 inches). 

Under current FMVSS No. 213 and the 

FMVSS No. 213a NPRM, these infant 

carriers would be subject to testing with 

the HIII–3-year-old or Q3s (35 lb) 

dummy. However, as commenters have 

pointed out, the HIII–3-year-old or the 

Q3s dummy do not fit easily in infant 

carriers and have limitations as test 

devices to evaluate the restraints. 

Given the purpose of infant carriers, 

NHTSA concludes there is not a safety 

need warranting a redesign to 

accommodate a 3-year-old dummy. 

Current infant carriers are convenient to 

use with infants and are popular with 

parents and other caregivers. The 

availability and ease-of-use of current 

carriers may result in more infants 

riding restrained, and rear-facing, than if 

the carriers were heavier, bulkier and 

more expensive. NHTSA does not 

believe that the infant carriers are used 

frequently for children weighing more 

than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Information from 

child passenger safety technicians 

involved in child restraint system 

checks indicates that infants usually 

outgrow infant carriers because of 

reaching the height limit of the carrier, 

rather than the weight limit. Further, as 

an infant reaches a 13.6 kg (30 lb) 

weight,223 the combined weight of the 

infant and the infant carrier becomes too 

heavy for a caregiver to pull out of the 

vehicle easily and carry around by a 

handle. Therefore, caregivers typically 

switch to a convertible or all-in one CRS 

as the child weight increases. A 13.6 kg 

(30 lb) maximum weight threshold for 

infant carriers would accommodate all 

1-year-old children (the average 97th 

percentile 1-year-old weighs 27.2 lb 

(12.3 kg)). 

The changes on dummy selection 

criteria would still allow a manufacturer 

to continue marketing its infant carrier 

for children weighing more than 13.6 kg 

(30 lb), but we anticipate manufacturers 

will not exceed the 13.6 kg (30 lb) 

weight threshold. Practically speaking, 

children weighing more than 30 lb 224

would be too old (no longer an infant), 

heavy and tall to easily fit an infant 

carrier. Nonetheless, if an infant carrier 

were recommended for children 

weighing more than 13.6 kg (30 lb), 

NHTSA would test it with the 3-yearold child dummy, and the manufacturer 

would be required to certify that the 

CRS can meet the performance 

requirements of the FMVSS when tested 

with the 3-year-old dummy. 

g. Miscellaneous Comments on the Test 

Procedure, Including Test Setup, Sled 

Instrumentation, and Data Processing 

For the NPRM, NHTSA placed a 

technical report, ‘‘Child Restraint Side 

Impact Test Procedure Development’’ 

(2013), in the docket which detailed 

NHTSA’s testing with regards to the 

sled test. MGA and Graco provided 

feedback on or requested clarification of 

different aspects of the proposed test 

procedure.225

High-Speed Camera Views 

MGA was concerned that no highspeed camera views were specified in 

FMVSS No. 213a. MGA stated that offboard cameras will require fewer 

structural elements to hold the cameras 

in place, which would aid in the ease 

of construction for new equipment. In 

response, NHTSA is providing guidance 

for use of high-speed cameras. NHTSA’s 

technical report, ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side 

Impact Test Evaluation and 

Revision,’’ 226 details VRTC’s high-speed 

camera views that it used in the 

development of the test protocol.227 The 

compliance test procedures developed 

by NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance (OVSC) will describe the 

camera positions that OVSC will use in 

its testing, which test facilities can use 

in developing their FMVSS No. 213a 

test protocols. 

Belt Tension 

MGA commented that the internal 

harness tension in FMVSS No. 213a is 

specified as ‘‘not less than 9 N,’’ while 

in FMVSS No. 213 it is specified as 

‘‘Tighten the belts until a 9 N force 

applied to the webbing at the top of 

each dummy shoulder and to the pelvic 

webbing 50 mm on either side of the 

torso midsagittal plane pulls the 

webbing 7 mm from the dummy.’’ 

NHTSA concurs that FMVSS No. 213a 

should specify an upper limit for 

tensioning internal harnesses, to have 

consistency in testing. Therefore, 

NHTSA is also including an upper limit 

to this internal harness tension. This 

final rule adopts a provision in FMVSS 

No. 213a that specifies the internal 

harness tension as ‘‘not less than 9 N 

but not more than 18 N.’’ This wording 

would be consistent with the FMVSS 

No. 213 instruction discussed in the 

November 2, 2020 NPRM. 

MGA also commented that, according 

to FMVSS No. 213a, booster seats would 

be tested with a Type 2 seat belt 

assembly that has the lap belt tensioned 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

228NHTSA does not anticipate booster seats will 

be produced that are subject to FMVSS No. 213a. 

First, NHTSA has proposed a requirement that 

boosters must be labeled as not suitable for children 

weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) (85 FR 69388, 

supra). Second, even in the absence of the proposed 

prohibition on labeling boosters for children under 

40 lb, it is unlikely booster seats can meet the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 213a, so manufacturers 

will likely label them to fall outside of the 

applicability of the side impact standard. 

229Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

230Seat orientation reference line means ‘‘the 

horizontal line through Point Z as illustrated in 

Figure 1A’’ of FMVSS No. 213. 49 CFR 571.213, S4 

Definitions. 

231Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

to 12 to 15 lb. MGA stated that the 

current FMVSS No. 213 requires a 

tension of 2 to 4 lb in both the lap and 

shoulder belt portion of the assembly. 

MGA suggested that for FMVSS No. 

213a, this tension is revised to be a 

constant 2 to 4 lb. NHTSA agrees with 

MGA’s suggestion. NHTSA had updated 

the lap belt tensions when installing 

booster seats in a 2012 final rule (77 FR 

11625) to 2 to 4 lb but had inadvertently 

used the previous specification of 12 to 

15 lb in the NPRM preceding this final 

rule. We believe the belt tension should 

be consistent with the current practices, 

and, therefore, we revised the tension 

accordingly.228

Instrumentation and Data Collection 

With regards to instrumentation and 

data collection, MGA commented that 

the NPRM materials specify both 

integrated accelerometer readings and a 

velocity trap for producing relative 

velocity readings between the sliding 

seat and intruding door. MGA asked 

which of these is considered the 

primary means of measurement, and 

which one is considered secondary. 

In response, because of modifications 

to the test buck design, NHTSA has 

removed the velocity trap. The 

integration of accelerometers is the 

primary source for relative velocity 

readings, as described in more detail in 

the technical report, ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 

Side Impact Test Evaluation and 

Revision.’’ 229

MGA also requested additional 

clarification with regards to the 

measurement of the acceleration and 

velocity of the intruding door. MGA 

asked, since the intruding door and 

sliding seat assembly are moving at a 

10-degree angle, can a traditional sled 

carriage accelerometer (mounted at 0 

degrees on the sled carriage frame) be 

used to measure the intruding door 

acceleration, or does it need to be 

mounted at a 10-degree angle? MGA 

also asked if this accelerometer should 

be mounted near the CG of the sled 

platform or on the intruding door. 

In response, the acceleration of the 

intruding door and the sliding seat 

perpendicular to the ‘‘seat orientation 

reference line’’ (SORL) 230 of the sliding 

seat is used to determine the relative 

velocity between the door assembly and 

the sliding seat. If the accelerometer is 

mounted at 0-degrees on the sled 

carriage frame, the acceleration 

measured is multiplied by cosine (10- 

degrees) to obtain the acceleration 

perpendicular to the SORL of the sliding 

seat. The report, ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side 

Impact Test Evaluation and Revision,’’ 

supra, details these calculations. The 

drawing package for the SISA, found in 

the docket for this final rule, provides 

information on the location of the 

accelerometers on the sled carriage with 

the door assembly and on the sliding 

seat. 

Also with regard to the 

accelerometers, MGA commented that 

dampened accelerometers are a good 

choice to read the sliding seat 

acceleration and velocity due to 

excessive vibration caused from impact 

with the honeycomb. However, MGA 

stated that SAE J211 (regarding 

instrumentation for impact tests, 

discussed further below) does not have 

provisions for dampened 

accelerometers. MGA stated that 

NHTSA will need to specify a 

dampening ratio, as the accelerometers 

used for NHTSA research have a 

different dampening ratio than the 

accelerometers used in MGA evaluation 

testing. MGA asked how the data would 

be processed for the dampened 

accelerometer, and would a CFC60 be 

used for acceleration data and CFC180 

for velocity data like for traditional sled 

accelerometers? MGA also asked if there 

was a specific location on the sliding 

seat where the accelerometer should be 

located. 

In response, NHTSA has updated the 

SISA, as discussed above, which has 

reduced excessive vibrations, and 

therefore dampened accelerometers are 

not used. The locations of the nondampened accelerometers can be found 

in the final drawing package and the 

‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side Impact Test 

Evaluation and Revision’’ report.231

Updating references to SAE 

Recommended Practice J211. The 

November 2014 NPRM on FMVSS No. 

213a proposed to reference SAE 

Recommended Practice J211, 

‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Test,’’ 

revised in June 1980, and proposed that 

all instrumentation and data reduction 

conform to J211 (1980). The reference to 

the June 1980 version was consistent 

with the current test specifications of 

FMVSS No. 213. MGA expressed 

concern over the use of J211 from 1980. 

MGA stated that J211 is a very 

commonly used test standard and is 

updated frequently, and that the it has 

been updated numerous times since 

1980. MGA suggested incorporating 

J211 from 2014 to reflect the latest 

revision. 

In the November 2, 2020 proposed 

frontal upgrade NPRM, supra, NHTSA 

proposed updating the reference to SAE 

Recommended Practice J211(1980) to 

SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 

(1995). The 1995 version was proposed 

because FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant 

crash protection,’’ currently refers to the 

1995 revision, and the 1995 version of 

SAE J211/1 is consistent with the 

current requirements for 

instrumentation and data processing in 

FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 208 was 

important to this decision because its 

specifications are used in Standard No. 

213 regarding testing of built-in child 

restraint systems. Standard No. 213 has 

a procedure in which the agency can 

test a built-in child restraint using an 

FMVSS No. 208 full vehicle crash test. 

Accordingly, using the same 

Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995) in 

FMVSS No. 213 facilitates the 

processing of test results when 

combining a test of built-in child 

restraints with an FMVSS No. 208 test. 

In this final rule, NHTSA has decided 

to update the reference to SAE 

Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995) to 

keep consistency between FMVSS No. 

213 and 213a. NHTSA is not adopting 

the 2014 version of J211 because 

Standard No. 208 uses the 1995 version, 

and consistency between FMVSS No. 

208 and FMVSS No. 213 is important 

for testing built-in child restraints. 

Measuring Head Contact of the CRABI 

MGA suggested that additional 

wording would be helpful for measuring 

the 12-month-old CRABI dummy head 

contact criterion pass/fail event. MGA 

stated that common testing practices 

include chalk or paint on the ATD head 

or door, or a conductive contact tape 

with a recorded signal. MGA added that 

paint and chalk are a relatively 

inexpensive and accurate way to look at 

the marks left during the test, but can 

produce error if not carefully applied. 

The commenter recommended that a 

test procedure with a common way of 

marking should be developed. MGA 

also stated that contact tape provides a 

more definitive event but has drawbacks 

including complexity in setup, and a 

chance for losing data since it is a 

recorded signal. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39293 

232Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

Graco’s comment described 42 sled 

tests, conducted in different labs, using 

the 12-month-old CRABI dummy to 

measure head contact with the door 

structure. Graco’s results showed that 

only one of the six CRSs evaluated 

produced conflicting head contact 

performance across the different test 

facilities. Graco provided video stills to 

show the non-repeatable head contact 

result at the different test facilities, 

where the camera angle made 

determination of head contact difficult. 

Graco suggested that the use of common 

camera angles and non-video contact 

methods may help confirm whether 

contact has occurred. Graco added that 

the common camera view it would 

recommend is a top view, 

approximately 3 feet above the door sill, 

and that this worked well for both 

forward- and rear-facing tests and could 

allow for a consistent determination of 

the head position from the door foam. 

Graco also commented on the nonvideo options considered in the NPRM, 

stating that with the contact paint there 

is possible confusion in determining if 

paint corresponds to the current test or 

a previous test. Graco also expressed 

concern with instrumented contact tape, 

as the commenter believed that method 

has not been proven to be repeatable. 

Graco stated that further development of 

these options could allow for a more 

concrete determination beyond video 

analysis only. 

In response to these comments, 

NHTSA tested several methods to 

evaluate head containment to address 

commenters’ concerns about different 

test methodologies. The methodologies 

included: 

• Wire mesh with foil contact tape. 

This method consists of wrapping the 

CRABI 12–MO dummy’s head in a 

copper wire mesh sleeve and metal foil 

contact tape applied to the door with 

double sided duct tape to ensure 

adhesion to the door as CRS impacts 

into it. A 1 Volt Voltage is applied to the 

foil contact tape causing a short circuit 

when the copper wire mesh makes 

contact. This results in a Voltage vs. 

Time plot. 

• Camera View. Camera coverage is 

aligned with the edge of the wall to 

visually witness head to door contact. 

For forward-facing CRSs NHTSA used a 

front tight view of the head and door 

area, and for rear-facing CRSs a tight 

view from the rear of the seat assembly. 

The camera placement used during 

NHTSA’s testing is detailed in OVSC’s 

test procedures so that test facilities can 

replicate the same camera views. 

• Grease Paint. Grease paint was used 

on the dummy’s head to detect head-todoor contact by paint transfer to the 

door. 

To share information and possibly 

further the enhancement of test 

protocols in the future, NHTSA 

discusses the agency’s experience with 

these tests in the ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side 

Impact Test Evaluation and Revision’’ 

report.232 Each method has its strengths 

and limits. Mesh and contact tape may 

have set up or equipment failures, and 

camera views do not always capture the 

head-to-door contact even when aligned 

to the door, as some CRSs require a 

carry-handle to be used in its ‘‘carrying’’ 

position, which blocks the view of the 

head and the door. Alternatively, grease 

paint is sometimes transferred with very 

light touches. NHTSA’s compliance TP 

will describe how NHTSA/OVSC 

instructs its contractors to conduct and 

evaluate head contact in compliance 

testing. However, NHTSA reiterates it is 

each manufacturer’s responsibility to 

certify the compliance of its CRSs with 

FMVSS No. 213a, and that 

manufacturers may use means or tools 

other than those described in the report 

or the OVSC TP to determine whether 

there was dummy head contact. 

h. Additional Changes 

• Section 9.2(c) of the proposed 

regulatory text referred to a 178 Newton 

(N) force that would be applied to the 

dummy’s crotch and thorax using a flat 

square surface with an area of 2,580 

square millimeters. In the final rule, this 

step has been changed, as applying this 

force to the Q3s dummy may 

inadvertently cause the dummy’s skin to 

get tucked in the pelvis. 

• Section 6.1.2 (a)(1) of the proposed 

rule indicated a tension for the tether as 

not less than 53.5 N and not more than 

67 N. During the tests of the FMVSS No. 

213 frontal upgrade program (which 

uses the same seat assembly design as 

this final rule for side impact), NHTSA 

found that in some cases the tethers 

could not be tightened to the proposed 

tension range because the seat assembly 

has a thinner seat back cushion (2 

inches) than the current FMVSS No. 213 

seat. This final rule adopts a tension 

range of not less than 45 N and not more 

than 53.5 N. This lower range in tension 

values for the tether are based on tether 

tensions achieved in the tests conducted 

at VRTC and therefore are practicable. 

• The application section (S3) was 

changed to clarify, but not change, its 

meaning. The revised wording is as 

follows: 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to add-on child restraint systems 

that are either recommended for use by 

children in a weight range that includes 

weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) 

regardless of height, or by children in a 

height range that includes heights up to 

1100 millimeters regardless of weight, 

except for car beds and harnesses. 

• S5(a) and S6.1.1(e) were slightly 

reworded to make clearer that each 

child restraint system is required to 

meet the performance requirements at 

each of the restraint’s seat back angle 

adjustment positions and restraint belt 

routing positions, in both the forward 

and rearward facing installation, as 

recommended by the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

• Added Section 5.1.6 to indicate the 

means of installation for which child 

restraint systems are required to meet 

the requirements, which include the 

Type II, Type II plus tether, Lower 

anchorages, and Lower anchorages plus 

tether as applicable to the different CRS 

types. 

• S6.1.1(a)(2)(c) was slightly edited to 

include the word ‘‘any’’ in the 

requirement before the words pulse and 

velocity. Here and elsewhere, the word 

any, used in connection with a range of 

values or set of items in the 

requirements, conditions, and 

procedures of the standard, means the 

totality of the items or values, any one 

of which may be selected by the 

Administration for testing, except where 

clearly specified otherwise. See Section 

571.4. 

• Sections 6.1.2(a)(1) through (3) were 

slightly edited for clarity stating that no 

supplemental devices are used to install 

the CRS when testing to FMVSS No. 

213a. In addition, section 5.1.6 was 

added to specify that CRSs must meet 

the requirements of the standard when 

installed solely by each of the listed 

installation methods. These changes are 

consistent with FMVSS No. 213 where 

CRSs are required to meet the standard 

solely by the installation methods in 

S5.3.2 and that no supplemental devices 

(i.e. load leg) will not be used. 

• S7.1 and S6.1.2(b) wording was 

slightly modified to be consistent with 

S7.1 (a) and (b). 

VIII. Performance Requirements 

NHTSA proposed using the Q3s and 

CRABI 12-month-old test dummies to 

test the conformance of CRSs to the side 

impact requirements. With the Q3s, we 

proposed to require CRSs to meet 

performance requirements such that the 

head injury criterion (HIC) over a 15 

millisecond (ms) timeframe was less 

than 570, and the chest displacement 

injury assessment reference value 

(IARV) was less than 23 mm. With the 

CRABI 12-month-old, we proposed to 

measure whether there was head-toVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Jun 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

233The anthropometry of the Q3 (and the side 

impact adaptation Q3s) is based on the Child 

Anthropometry Database (CANDAT) for a 3-yearold child compiled by the Netherlands Organization 

for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). CANDAT 

includes various characteristic dimensions and 

weights of children of different ages obtained from 

different regions in the world including United 

States, Europe, and Japan. 

234NHTSA evaluated the Q3 dummy and found 

that the Q3 dummy did not have adequate 

biofidelity in lateral impact, in contrast to the Q3s 

dummy, which was designed for side impacts. 

235The IR–TRACC is a deformation measurement 

tool that consists of an infrared LED emitter and an 

infrared phototransistor detector. The emitter and 

detector are enclosed at each end of a telescoping 

tube. The chest deformation is determined from the 

irradiance measured by the detector, which is 

inversely proportional to the distance of the 

detector from the emitter. 

236Carlson, M., Burleigh, M., Barnes, A., 

Waagmeester, K., van Ratingen, M. ‘‘Q3s 3 Year Old 

Side Impact Dummy Development,’’ 20th 

International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles, Paper No. 07–0205, 2007. http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0205-O.pdf. 

Last accessed on June 11, 2012. 237A few specifications were corrected in a 

response to a petition for reconsideration. 86 FR 

66214, November 22, 2021. The document corrected 

a few drawings in the drawing package for the 

dummy and some provisions in the user’s manual. 

238Q3s final rule, 85 FR 69898, 69899 (November 

3, 2020). 

door contact only, as the CRABI 12- 

month-old is a frontal test dummy and 

was not developed to provide accurate 

data about the severity of injuries in 

side impacts. 

NHTSA is finalizing a test procedure 

that utilizes the Q3s and the CRABI 12- 

month-old dummies and the proposed 

injury and other performance criteria. 

After careful consideration of the 

comments and other information, 

including data from additional testing 

with the Q3s, NHTSA determined that 

the Q3s effectively replicates a child in 

a side impact and provides a reliable 

assessment of injury measures in the 

side impact environment. In addition, 

although there is currently no infantsized dummy available specifically for 

side impact testing, NHTSA concludes 

that the CRABI 12-month-old is a 

suitable instrument for assessing the 

ability of a CRS to prevent head-to-door 

contact and is an acceptable tool for 

evaluating important aspects of CRS 

performance in side crashes. 

a. Q3s 

The Q3s is built on the platform of the 

standard Q3 dummy series (the Q-series 

are frontal ATDs used in Europe), but 

the Q3s has enhanced lateral biofidelity, 

durability, and additional 

instrumentation for specialized use in 

side impact testing.233 234 For 

instrumentation, the Q3s has three uniaxial accelerometers at the head center 

of gravity (CG) and an InfraRed 

Telescoping Rod for Assessment of 

Chest Compression (IR–TRACC) 235 in 

the thorax for measuring lateral chest 

deflection. The Q3s also has a 

deformable shoulder with shoulder 

deflection measurement capabilities, 

arms with improved flesh 

characteristics, a laterally compliant 

chest, and a pelvis with improved upper 

leg flesh, floating hip cups, and a pubic 

load transducer.236 Specifications for 

the Q3s were adopted into NHTSA’s 

regulation for anthropomorphic test 

devices (49 CFR part 572) on November 

3, 2020 (85 FR 69898).237

NHTSA cited several reasons in the 

2014 NPRM for selecting the Q3s for 

testing in the side impact test 

procedure, including the ATD’s 

commercial availability, its enhanced 

biofidelity and instrumentation 

capabilities, and its durability. The 

injury criteria proposed for use with the 

Q3s dummy included a maximum HIC 

value of 570 measured in a 15 ms 

timeframe and a chest displacement 

IARV of 23 mm. NHTSA did not believe 

there was reason to propose a 

performance criterion for testing with 

the Q3s that would prohibit head 

contact with the intruding door, because 

testing in development of the NPRM 

demonstrated that peak HIC values 

occurred prior to the head contacting 

the intruding door. In other words, the 

risk of head injury from head-to-door 

contact was lower than the risk from 

peak acceleration, so measuring the 

peak HIC value from head-to-door 

contact would not further the 

assessment of compliance. 

Comments on the proposed use of the 

Q3s were mixed, with some commenters 

expressing concerns about dummy 

sourcing and biofidelity, and other 

commenters supporting the use of the 

Q3s. NHTSA received some comments 

in support of the proposed performance 

requirements for the Q3s, but none on 

the specific HIC or chest deflection 

values proposed in the NPRM. Many 

commenters requested that the agency 

include a head containment 

requirement for the Q3s. As discussed 

below in this section, this final rule 

adopts the use of the Q3s dummy in the 

FMVSS No. 213a side impact test, along 

with the performance criteria proposed 

in the NPRM. The agency’s November 3, 

2020, final rule incorporating the Q3s 

test dummy into 49 CFR part 572, 

discusses technical details about the 

Q3s. 

1. Q3s Sourcing 

As discussed in the November 3, 2020 

final rule and further below, the 

sourcing and biofidelity issues 

associated with the Q3s have been 

addressed. Humanetics Innovative 

Solutions Inc. (HIS), the ATD supplier, 

only had minor drawing corrections to 

the November 3, 2020 final rule 

adopting the Q3s, and these corrections 

have been adopted in the November 22, 

2021 final rule responding to the 

petition for reconsideration. With the 

final corrections adopted, NHTSA is 

confident that HIS will be able to 

deliver the Q3s within specification. 

When NHTSA published its 2013 NPRM 

proposing to incorporate the Q3s test 

dummy into 49 CFR part 572 (78 FR 

69944; November 21, 2013), the Q3s was 

a proprietary product owned by HIS, 

and HIS was the only source from 

which to obtain the Q3s. By mid-2014, 

after the publication of the FMVSS No. 

213a side impact NPRM, HIS began 

delivering Q3s dummies to end-users 

that included NHTSA, CRS 

manufacturers, and testing laboratories. 

NHTSA reopened the side impact 

protection NPRM comment period in 

mid-2014 to allow stakeholders to 

familiarize themselves with the Q3s, test 

CRSs with the ATD, and provide 

NHTSA with feedback in another round 

of comments. 

In a comment, Dorel expressed 

concern with the dummy being 

available from only one source (HIS), 

and that the dummy could be subject to 

patents in whole or part, thus 

potentially subjecting Dorel and the CRS 

industry to unregulated and unbound 

prices. Dorel stated that one source and 

supply with no competition in an open 

market can lead to potential service, 

supply, and quality problems 

potentially interrupting timely 

certification and delivery of CRS 

products to customers. Dorel 

commented that allowing the continued 

use of the Hybrid III dummy as an 

option may temporarily alleviate this 

concern, but that in the long run, the 

lack of competition in dummy supply is 

a serious issue for the manufacturers 

and the entire CRS community. 

In response, NHTSA makes clear that, 

while single source restrictions were in 

place during the NPRM stages (HIS 

retained rights to manufacture the 

dummy), the Q3s dummy drawings and 

designs are now free of any restrictions, 

including restrictions on their use in 

fabrication and in building computer 

simulation models of the dummy.238

2. Biofidelity 

Dorel commented on the difficulties it 

had with the Q3s dummy in its final 

development phase in areas of 

construction, materials, manufacture, 

and qualification. Dorel believed that 

many aspects of the dummy were not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39295 

239 85 FR 69898. 

240 Id. 241See Wietholter & Louden (2021). 

yet finalized, such as the neck twist 

fixture design (Dorel said it was 

completed but still needs to be validated 

and is not ready for sale or purchase), 

and the Q3s calibration software. Dorel 

stated it was ready and willing to 

support the rulemaking process by 

providing data to help assess the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

dummy. 

NHTSA has addressed these dummy 

design, qualification and biofidelity 

issues in the November 3, 2020 final 

rule incorporating the Q3s dummy into 

part 572. Since the final rule, HIS has 

been able to deliver Q3s dummies 

within specification and at the 49 CFR 

part 572 design level. That final rule 

also addresses the stiffness of the Q3s 

shoulder,239 with NHTSA’s test data 

demonstrating that the Q3s shoulder is 

biofidelic in the manner in which it will 

exert force on the CRS. 

JPMA commented that HIC15 may not 

be the most appropriate measurement 

given the biofidelic limitations of the 

Q3s. JPMA explained that one member 

noted large variation in HIC 

measurements with the Q3s dummy in 

the proposed side impact test with 

relatively small changes in the test, 

which it believes is due in large part to 

the biofidelic limitations of the dummy. 

JPMA added that this member’s 

previous comments on the NPRM for 

the Q3s dummy highlighted the impact 

the Q3s’s shoulder stiffness could have 

on test results. JPMA stated that given 

the lack of biofidelity in this particular 

region of the Q3s dummy, HIC15 may 

not be the best or even most appropriate 

measure of side impact protection. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA’s November 3, 2020 final rule 

addresses the stiffness of the Q3s 

shoulder,240 with NHTSA’s test data 

demonstrating that the Q3s shoulder is 

sufficiently biofidelic for the FMVSS 

No. 213a test. NHTSA explained in the 

final rule that, under conditions that 

correspond closest to the intended use 

of the Q3s in the proposed FMVSS No. 

213 side impact test, the force response 

of the padded probe nearly matches the 

target. With magnitude of the force 

generated by the padded probe well 

within the envelope for a biofidelic 

response, these data show that the Q3s 

shoulder is biofidelic as to how it loads 

a CRS and how it responds to the 

external probe force. Thus, this loading 

of the child restraint, which would 

affect the overall motion of the dummy’s 

upper torso and head (through which 

the FMVSS No. 213a injury criteria 

under consideration would be 

measured), is representative of an actual 

human. NHTSA concluded that the Q3s 

shoulder and how the ATD’s shoulder, 

head and torso will interact when the 

dummy is restrained in a child restraint 

in the side impact test are sufficiently 

biofidelic. 

In response to JPMA’s concerns about 

the biofidelity of the Q3s based on 

HIC15 fluctuations at different speeds, 

NHTSA’s study of repeatability and 

reproducibility (discussed further 

below) shows that the HIC15 

fluctuations are within acceptable 

limits.241

3. Aspects of Testing With the Q3s 

i. Reversibility 

JPMA stated that the NPRM for the 

Q3s test dummy referred to the 

reversibility of the IR–TRACC and how 

it is to be configured, but the 

corresponding NPRM for the proposed 

side impact test did not provide for 

reversibility. JPMA added that some 

members reported testing of rear-facing 

CRSs at Calspan that was initially 

conducted with the IR–TRACC 

configured in the wrong direction 

because the NPRM for the test itself 

does not mention this feature. JPMA 

suggested that the final rule and test 

procedure specify the direction of the 

IR–TRACC consistent with the final rule 

on the Q3s to alleviate confusion and 

inconsistency. 

In response, the configuration of the 

IR–TRACC has been incorporated in the 

regulatory text of this final rule for 

preparing the dummies in different CRS 

configurations. NHTSA’s Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance test 

procedure will include details as well, 

as suggested by JPMA. 

ii. HIII 3-Year-Old Child Test Dummy as 

an Alternative 

NHTSA requested comment in the 

NPRM on the merits of using an 

alternative 3-year-old child ATD in 

FMVSS No. 213a. The alternative 

dummy was the Hybrid III 3-year-old 

dummy now used in the frontal crash 

test of FMVSS No. 213. Comparisons 

between the Q3s and Hybrid III 3-yearold ATD found that the two dummies’ 

heads and necks provided nearly 

equivalent biofidelity. However, in all 

other biofidelity test conditions— 

shoulder, thorax and pelvis—the Q3s 

exhibited significant advantages relative 

to the alternative HIII 3-year-old design. 

In the NPRM, NHTSA stated its 

preference for the Q3s but sought 

comments on the alternative use of the 

Hybrid III 3-year-old ATD instead of the 

Q3s. 

Comments Received 

Dorel stated that it would support the 

temporary inclusion of the Hybrid III 3- 

year-old ATD as the introduction and 

availability of the Q3s was difficult from 

the dummy manufacturer. Dorel 

supported the approach of permitting 

optional use of the Hybrid III for some 

period of time in lieu of the Q3s 

dummy, adding that an option to use 

the Hybrid III 3-year-old ATD could 

serve to fill the lack of availability of the 

Q3s, as well as provide additional time 

to study the effects of the Q3s. 

Dorel noted the comments filed by 

Humanetics in Docket NHTSA–2013– 

0118, which stated that NHTSA’s 

proposal was not based on the latest Q3s 

dummy. Dorel added that when the 

dummy drawings and specifications 

change, it can affect the outcome of 

crash tests and cause manufacturers to 

consider different countermeasures. 

Dorel stated that at some point, the 

drawings and specifications need to be 

frozen so that NHTSA and 

manufacturers can be certain that they 

are using the same dummy in the 

research and, ultimately, compliance 

testing. 

Britax and JPMA stated at that time 

that Britax and other CRS manufacturers 

had limited opportunity to test with the 

Q3s ATD and so had limited feedback 

to offer the agency on this topic. Britax 

also stated it would favor a phased-in 

requirement and use of the Q3s ATD so 

that, for a period of time, either ATD 

could be used to certify to the side 

impact test requirements. Britax noted 

this approach was similar to when the 

agency permitted use of the Hybrid II or 

Hybrid III ATDs following revisions to 

the frontal impact sled test requirements 

of FMVSS No. 213. Conversely, TRL 

argued that, if the Q3 has been ruled to 

not adequately meet lateral biofidelity 

requirements, then the Hybrid III 3-yearold should also not be used if it also 

does not meet side impact biofidelity 

requirements. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has decided against using the 

HIII–3-year-old dummy in the side 

impact compliance test. NHTSA 

explained in the NPRM that biofidelity 

tests showed that, while the HIII and the 

Q3s dummies’ heads and necks 

provided nearly equivalent biofidelity, 

the Q3s exhibited significant advantages 

relative to the HIII–3-year-old in all 

other test conditions (shoulder, thorax 

and pelvis). NHTSA agrees with TRL 

that if the Hybrid III–3-year-old dummy 

does not adequately meet lateral 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

242Craig, M., ‘‘Q3s Injury Criteria,’’ Human Injury 

Research Division, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (Nov. 2013) [hereinafter Craig 

(2013)]. 

243For long duration accelerations without a 

pronounced peak, such as those when the head 

does not contact any hard surfaces (as in the frontal 

FMVSS No. 213 test), the computed HIC15 value 

may be lower than the HIC36 value—so the HIC36 

computation may be a better representation of the 

overall head acceleration. 

244PRIA at pg. 65. NHTSA concluded that the 800 

HIC limit resulted in many fewer equivalent lives 

saved than the proposed 570 HIC limit, higher cost 

per equivalent life saved, and lower net benefits. 

Although the 400 HIC alternative resulted in more 

equivalent lives saved and higher net benefits, 

NHTSA was concerned about the effect of the 400 

HIC limit on child restraint design and use. 

Specifically, NHTSA was not able to demonstrate 

that theoretical structural improvements to CRSs 

could actually achieve the 400 HIC limit, and other 

means of meeting the limit would reduce the space 

provided for the child’s head or make the CRS 

wider and heavier, which may impact overall use 

of the CRS. 

245Such a performance criterion for CRSs is 

currently being used in the Australian standard AS/ 

NZS 1754, and the Australian CREP consumer 

information program. 

biofidelity, then it should not be used to 

measure injury mechanisms on the 

child occupant in a side impact as 

envisioned in the dynamic test of 

FMVSS No. 213a. The agency has not 

found any advantage in using the HIII– 

3-year-old dummy in the side impact 

test, and so is not adopting use of the 

HIII dummy. 

In their 2014 comments, Dorel and 

Britax supported the temporary use of 

the HIII–3-year-old dummy in the 

FMVSS No. 213a test based on their 

limited experience with the Q3s. Since 

2014, manufacturers have had years to 

become familiar with the dummy, and, 

as discussed further in the lead time 

section below, manufacturers will be 

provided lead time to use the Q3s before 

certifying their CRSs to FMVSS No. 

213a. Based on these considerations, 

NHTSA has decided not to use the 

Hybrid III-based 3-year-old ATD, and 

has instead decided to adopt a final test 

procedure that uses only the Q3s to 

evaluate injury criteria and compliance 

with FMVSS No. 213a. Use of the Q3s 

will ensure the fullest possible 

evaluation of the side protection of 

CRSs certified to the new standard. 

The agency’s rulemaking adopting the 

Q3s into 49 CFR part 572 ‘‘froze’’ the 

specifications of the test dummy in 

NHTSA’s regulation, as sought by 

Dorel’s comment. Thus, the test dummy 

is an established NHTSA test tool until 

amended through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. We note that while there 

were different build levels of the Q3s 

dummy used throughout the 

development of the Q3s dummy, the 

January 2014 NPRM (79 FR 4570) 

proposing a side impact test for CRSs 

was based on tests using the proposed 

(and now adopted) Q3s dummy. 

4. Q3s Performance Measures 

To determine the injury criteria to use 

with the Q3s ATD, NHTSA analyzed 

NASS–CDS data average annual 

estimates (1995–2009) for AIS 2+ 

injuries to children 0- to 12-years-old in 

rear seats. Data showed that the most 

common AIS 2+ injuries among 

children restrained in side impacts were 

to the head and face (55 percent), torso 

(chest and abdomen—29 percent), and 

upper and lower extremities (13 

percent). Given the high frequency of 

head and thoracic injuries to children 

involved in side crashes reported in 

these data and in multiple studies,242

NHTSA proposed appropriate injury 

criteria that focused on the child 

occupant’s head and thorax. 

i. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 

NHTSA proposed to address the 

potential for head injuries by setting a 

maximum on the HIC value measured 

by the Q3s in the side impact test. HIC 

is used in FMVSS No. 213 and in all 

other crashworthiness FMVSSs that 

protect against adult and child head 

injury. However, while FMVSS No. 

213’s frontal impact requirement 

specifies an injury assessment reference 

value (IARV) of 1,000 measured in a 36 

ms timeframe (36 ms for integrating 

head acceleration) (HIC36=1,000), 

NHTSA proposed a HIC limit of 570 

measured in a 15 ms timeframe (15 ms 

duration for integrating head resultant 

acceleration) (HIC15=570) when using 

the Q3s dummy in the side impact sled 

test. 

NHTSA explained differences 

between the FMVSS No. 213 frontal 

impact test and the proposed side 

impact test that made the HIC36=1,000 

and HIC15=570 performance values 

appropriate for each respective test. 

Specifically, FMVSS No. 213’s frontal 

impact test evaluates the performance of 

CRSs on a frontal impact sled buck that 

does not have a structure (representing 

a front seat) forward of the tested CRS 

on the bench seat. In contrast, in the 

proposed side impact test, there is a 

simulated vehicle door and the test 

environment is set up so that ATD head 

contact with the CRS and the door is 

probable. Injurious contacts (such as 

head-to-door contacts) are of short 

duration (less than 15 ms) in the FMVSS 

No. 213a set-up and are more 

appropriately addressed by HIC15 (15 

millisecond duration for integrating 

head resultant acceleration) than HIC36. 

For head impact accelerations with 

duration less than 15 ms, the computed 

values of HIC15 and HIC36 are generally 

equivalent, meaning that the injury 

threshold level for HIC15=570 is more 

stringent than the threshold of 

HIC36=1,000. HIC15 is a more 

appropriate requirement than HIC36 for 

the short duration impact of FMVSS No. 

213a, and is better able to discern 

injurious impact events.243

NHTSA also considered alternative 

HIC15 requirements of 400 and 800, and 

included an assessment of benefits and 

costs of those alternatives in the PRIA 

accompanying the NPRM. Ultimately, 

the agency declined either as the 

preferred proposed injury criterion.244

Comments Received 

There were no comments on the 

proposed HIC15 thresholds to evaluate 

head injuries. NHTSA has adopted the 

HIC15=570 criterion for the reasons 

provided in the NPRM. 

ii. Head Contact (Not Assessed) 

NHTSA tentatively concluded in the 

NPRM there was no safety need for a 

performance criterion that prohibited 

Q3s head contact with the intruding 

door.245 NHTSA’s video analysis 

showed that 13 out of 19 forward-facing 

CRS models had head-to-door contact 

during the test. However, further 

analysis of the head acceleration time 

histories showed that peak acceleration 

of the head occurred before the head 

contacted the door. Six of the 13 models 

that had head-to-door contact had 

HIC15 values exceeding 570; these peak 

HIC15 values occurred prior to head 

contact with the door. This suggested 

that the peak head acceleration was the 

result of a previous impact, most likely 

the head contacting the side of the CRS 

at the time the CRS contacted the 

intruding door. 

Given that the head acceleration 

values computed during the time of 

head-to-door contact were lower than 

the peak head acceleration, NHTSA 

determined the risk of head injury from 

head-to-door contacts of the ATD in the 

13 CRSs was not only much lower than 

the risk from the peak acceleration, but 

was also of a magnitude that would not 

result in serious injury. Accordingly, the 

agency tentatively decided not to use a 

performance criterion based specifically 

on head contact in tests with the Q3s 

dummy, as HIC15 appeared to 

sufficiently discern between noninjurious contacts and injurious 

contacts, and showed that head-to-door 

contact was not a relevant predictor of 

head injury in the side impact test. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39297 

246The first contact could be to the SISA door, 

if the child restraint has no side wing in the head 

area. 247Sullivan et al. (2013). 

248Similarly, the child restraint must maintain 

structural integrity in the FMVSS No. 213a side 

crash when restraining the mass of the 12-monthold CRABI. Use of the CRABI will ensure a robust 

assessment of the structural integrity of the CRS in 

a dynamic side crash event. 

Comments Received 

There were a number of comments on 

this issue. UMTRI, ARCCA, NTSB, and 

the Transportation Research Laboratory 

(TRL) commented that a head 

containment criterion should be 

adopted in addition to HIC15. ARCCA 

commented that notwithstanding a low 

HIC15 score from the Q3s head impact 

with the door, there could be a risk of 

head injury for a child due to the 

differences between the Q3s dummy 

and a human child, and differences 

between the lab crash conditions of the 

FMVSS No. 213a test and the real 

world. Similarly, Mr. Hauschild stated 

that vehicle doors will have different 

designs that will include differing 

padding, shapes, and trim, so data from 

the test seat assembly might not be 

sufficient to show an absence of a safety 

need for a head containment 

requirement. 

Some commenters (Mr. Hauschild, 

UMTRI, NTSB) believed it would be 

inconsistent to adopt a head 

containment performance criterion for 

the 12-month-old CRABI, and not for 

the Q3s. (NTSB raised a similar point 

regarding the inconsistence of 

measuring HIC with the Q3s but not 

with the 12-month-old CRABI. NTSB 

queried whether a head-to-CRS impact 

for the 12-month-old CRABI dummy 

may be injurious in some 

circumstances, implying that HIC 

should be a criterion in tests.) 

Response 

NHTSA is not adopting a head 

containment requirement in tests with 

the Q3s. NHTSA believes there is no 

safety need for a performance criterion 

prohibiting head contact of the Q3s 

because the HIC criterion discerns 

between contacts that are non-injurious 

(HIC15 less than 570) (soft contacts), 

and hard, injurious (HIC15 more than 

570)) contacts. During the FMVSS No. 

213a near-side impact test the intruding 

door first contacts the outer surface of 

the CRS, and then both the door and 

CRS side structure continue intruding 

into the dummy’s seating area and 

impact the dummy. The first impact to 

the dummy’s head happens when the 

CRS side countermeasure (side wing) 246

contacts the dummy. The HIC15 

criterion evaluates whether this impact 

is injurious or not. Testing showed that 

this impact results in a high HIC, and 

that head-to-door contacts that occurred 

after the first impact of the head against 

the CRS side wing were soft contacts. 

That is, head-to-door impacts did not 

result in an acceleration response that 

would be injurious, as the HICs were 

consistently below the injury 

assessment reference value of 570. In 

light of this data, prohibiting head 

contact with the door as a criterion in 

the side impact test would not be 

meaningful, as such a prohibition would 

be commensurate with disallowing head 

contact with a non-injurious surface. 

As explained above in this preamble, 

the stiffness of the simulated door in the 

SISA is representative of the stiffness 

found in vehicles, which NHTSA 

assessed using the free motion headform 

(FMH) testing described above. The 

stiffness of the 51 mm thick door 

padding includes the combined stiffness 

of the door assembly (inner and outer 

panel of the door) and the interior door 

padding. Details of the development of 

the door characteristics can be found in 

the ‘‘Child Restraint Side Impact Test 

Procedure Development’’ technical 

report.247 Because the simulated door is 

a good representation of a vehicle door, 

NHTSA does not believe it is necessary 

to include a contact criterion when 

using the Q3s dummy. On the issue of 

the perceived inconsistencies in how 

the dummies are used in FMVSS No. 

213a, as explained below, there is good 

reason not to adopt a restriction against 

head contact by the Q3s even though a 

restriction is adopted in tests with the 

12-month-old CRABI. The Q3s and the 

CRABI dummies are fundamentally 

different. As the agency explained in the 

NPRM, the Q3s is a specially designed 

side impact dummy, while the 12- 

month-old CRABI dummy is designed 

for use in frontal impacts. The 12- 

month-old CRABI’s injury-measuring 

instrumentation is not designed to 

measure HIC in a side crash, so its 

measurements of HIC to ascertain the 

potential for head injuries have not been 

shown valid in side crashes. (This is 

explained in more detail in the section 

below on the CRABI dummy.) If the 

CRABI were designed for use in side 

impacts, there would be more of a basis 

for harmonizing how the dummies are 

used in FMVSS No. 213a. 

The agency is using the CRABI 

dummy in FMVSS No. 213a because 

there is no other suitable test dummy 

designed to test child restraints for 

children of sizes represented by the 12- 

month-old dummy. NHTSA is 

mandated by MAP–21 to issue a final 

rule to improve the protection of 

children under 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in 

side impacts and is incorporating the 

12-month-old CRABI in a manner that 

makes that possible. While the test 

dummy is a frontal test dummy, it is a 

valuable test tool in providing a worstcase assessment of injury risk in a side 

impact regarding head-to-door contact. 

A CRS that is unable to prevent the 

CRABI ATD’s head from contacting the 

door in the side impact test is highly 

unlikely to prevent a real child’s head 

from impacting the door. The head-todoor contact criterion will lead to 

improved side coverage of the infant’s 

head and better means of preventing 

head-to-door contact.248

TRL commented that NHTSA test data 

from tests of the CRABI 12-month-old 

seem to contradict NHTSA’s conclusion 

that the Q3s’s peak head accelerations 

occur before contact with the door. The 

commenter states that, in tests where 

the CRABI head contacts the door, the 

HIC15 limit is exceeded, and that the 

one seat that failed on head-to-door 

contact recorded one of the lowest HIC 

values. 

In response, the tests with the CRABI 

dummy presented in the NPRM had a 

high rate of HIC15 failures, yet field 

experience of rear facing seats indicates 

that the CRSs are very safe in side 

impacts (we discuss this issue further in 

a section below on head-to-door 

contact). The CRABI dummy’s shoulder 

and neck are not designed for lateral 

loading and this may influence head 

kinematics prior to contact with the 

CRS/door. The CRABI head does not 

meet lateral biofidelity requirements. 

Therefore, NHTSA is unable to confirm 

that the dummy’s HIC measurement 

provides a valid assessment of head 

injury risk in side impacts. Both the 

severity of the resulting head contacts 

and the response of the head to those 

contacts may not be representative of 

the real world. 

TRL also believed that FMVSS No. 

213a will encourage keeping the HIC15 

low by allowing the Q3s head to roll out 

of the forward-facing CRS head pad, 

which increases the risk of contact 

between the head and the door. TRL 

was concerned that possible 

consequences of the standard’s 

encouraging designs that roll out the 

head would be that the head may less 

protected in the event of a more oblique 

impact, and subject to risks of secondary 

impact or flying debris like broken glass. 

Consumers Union (CU) also observed 

that the forward component of the 

proposed side impact pulse caused the 

Q3s head to ‘‘roll out’’ of the child 

restraint shell in some instances. CU 

stated that, with taller forward-facing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

249September 1, 2015 comment, p. 3. 

250Mertz et al., ‘‘Biomechanical and Scaling 

Bases for Frontal and Side Impact Injury 

Assessment Reference Values,’’ 47th Stapp Car 

Crash Conference, 2003–22–0009, October 2003. 

251Craig (2013). 

252United Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe (UNECE). Regulation 44, ‘‘Child Restraint 

Systems’’ and UNECE Regulation 129, ‘‘Enhanced 

Child Restraint Systems.’’ 

253 In a test at VRTC an arm and leg were broken, 

but the breakage occurred to the arm and leg on the 

opposite side of impact (i.e. the impact was to the 

right side of the dummy but the breakage was to the 

left arm and leg). NHTSA believes the broken arm 

and leg on the opposite side of impact were a result 

of anomalous and undetermined factors and were 

not related to the durability of the dummy. 

seats or booster seats, the Q3s’s head 

position will be above the top edge 

(beltline) of the simulated door, so the 

rollout may result in a lower HIC as the 

ATD’s head avoids contacting the door 

or inside surface of the CRS. CU argued 

that, although the rollout may predict 

real crash dynamics, ‘‘the lack of any 

interaction above the simulated door 

may not be realistic. In an actual side 

impact crash, window glass, pillars, or 

an intruding vehicle above the vehicle 

beltline will likely be a point of contact 

for a child’s head.’’ 249 CU suggested 

NHTSA consider a planar limit that 

would reduce the potential for seats to 

be designed to take advantage of the 

rollout of the dummy’s head to achieve 

low HIC values. 

In response, NHTSA disagrees that in 

the absence of a Q3s head contact 

criterion, CRS manufacturers will 

design their seats in a manner that 

increases the likelihood of head-to-door 

contact. Managing the crash energy 

impacted to the dummy’s head from an 

intruding door to meet the HIC15=570 

criterion is an engineering challenge. It 

is highly unlikely that a CRS design 

would factor in head rollout, as 

managing the energy of the impact of 

the head when it eventually contacts the 

moving door will likely be unfeasible 

without managing the crash forces 

through countermeasures like foam and 

structures engineered into the side 

wings, and means to restricting the 

dummy’s head within that protective 

area. 

NHTSA’s testing with the Q3s dummy 

in actual vehicles showed the CRS side 

head wing was in between the head of 

the dummy and the door, as the height 

of the Q3s dummy’s head in a CRS was 

positioned at or was only partially 

above the windowsill. NHTSA modeled 

the FMVSS No. 213a side impact test to 

replicate the dynamics of FMVSS No. 

214 MDB tests of actual vehicles. During 

the tests NHTSA conducted to model 

this protocol, we did not see any 

intruding vehicle or pillars interacting 

with the dummy. Some flexion of the 

CRS and dummy’s head was present, 

but it was not enough to contact the 

glass, as the dummy is not tall enough 

to reach the glazing. Therefore, in 

response to CU, NHTSA does not 

believe a planar limit for this 

rulemaking is necessary. Although some 

rollout of the head of taller (older) 

occupants may occur above the window 

sill due to the higher sitting height of 

the child, use of a planar limit and the 

like addressing how CRSs should 

restrain the head of taller (older) 

occupants is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

iii. Chest Deflection 

The agency proposed a chest 

displacement IARV for the Q3s of 23 

mm. The proposed 23 mm chest 

displacement IARV was based on two 

separate studies that used length-based 

scaling from adult post-mortem human 

subject and dummy responses to 

generate an estimated injury risk for a 3- 

year-old child.250 251 The studies both 

found, based on their independent data 

sets, that a displacement of 23 mm 

represented a 30 percent and 33 percent 

probability of AIS 3+ injury, 

respectively. 

The agency did not receive any 

comments on the proposed chest 

deflection thresholds. NHTSA has 

adopted the proposed criterion for the 

reasons provided in the NPRM. 

b. CRABI 12-Month-Old 

The CRABI dummy is a frontal crash 

test dummy and is instrumented with 

head, neck, and chest accelerometers. 

NHTSA noted in the NPRM that, while 

there is no infant test dummy available 

that is specially designed for side 

impact testing, the agency believed that 

the CRABI 12-month-old could be a 

useful tool to evaluate critical aspects of 

CRS performance in side impacts. 

Because children under 1-year-old have 

the highest restraint use, NHTSA sought 

to find a way to evaluate the side impact 

performance of the CRSs they use, even 

if the evaluation is limited to 

containment, structural integrity, and 

other related matters. 

1. Alternative ATDs 

Several commenters suggested 

developing a new 12-month-old dummy 

to assess side impact performance. 

Graco suggested considering developing 

a Q1s (Q-series one-year-old), as did 

TRL, which argued that the Q1 is used 

for front and side impact testing in 

United Nations (U.N.) Regulations No. 

44 (R.44) and No. 129 (R.129) 252 and 

would allow head accelerations to be 

assessed. 

While NHTSA has not evaluated the 

Q1 dummy, NHTSA does not believe 

the Q1 dummy, which is a scaled 

version of the Q3 dummy, is biofidelic 

in side impact. NHTSA had evaluated 

the Q3 dummy and found it was not 

biofidelic in side impact. As a result, 

NHTSA conducted extensive research 

on modifications to the Q3 dummy 

design to improve its biofidelity in side 

impact. This multi-year agency effort 

led to the development of the Q3s 

dummy. NHTSA believes it is 

unnecessary to delay the final rule 

further to conduct multi-year research 

for developing a version of the Q1 

dummy with appropriate biofidelity in 

side impact. The agency believes the use 

of the CRABI 12-month old dummy, 

along with the restriction protecting 

against head contact in the side test, 

will enhance the side crash protection 

of these CRSs. 

2. Durability 

JPMA raised concerns about the 

durability of the CRABI dummy, stating 

that in some tests the CRABI 12-monthold’s arm broke at the elbow. The 

commenter stated that the attendant 

replacement costs of the dummy’s upper 

arm was approximately $900, which 

JPMA said was a very significant 

expense if repeated during many test 

cycles. JPMA said its members reported 

that, during the side impact event, the 

test dummy’s arm gets crushed between 

the side of the seat (which is impacted 

by the door panel feature) and the test 

dummy’s torso, and that there is 

sufficient deflection at this point to 

break the elbow. Similarly, while Graco 

commented in support of the use of the 

12-month-old CRABI dummy, it noted 

some concerns with long term 

maintenance of the dummy over time. 

In response, during the development 

period of the side impact test protocol, 

and with over 50 tests with the 12- 

month-old CRABI dummy at VRTC, 

NHTSA did not observe arm breakage as 

described by JPMA.253 Also, during 

testing at Kettering University 

(discussed in a section below), only one 

12-month-old CRABI dummy test 

resulted in a fractured arm. NHTSA 

believes the problem with the arm 

breakage may have been due to an 

anomaly in the dummy set up in the 

JPMA tests. NHTSA is not aware of data 

demonstrating that the dummy’s 

durability renders the dummy 

insufficient for use in the FMVSS No. 

213a side impact test. 

NHTSA also notes that, in the years 

since the 2014 NPRM preceding this 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39299 

254 85 FR 69898, supra. 

255Sherwood et al. (2007). 

256NHTSA did not propose a chest injury 

criterion for the CRABI. Biofidelic corridors for 12- 

month-old children are not available. Also, because 

the small size of a 12-month old dummy makes it 

difficult to fit instrumentation in such limited 

space, it may not be feasible to build and fully 

instrument a dummy this size for side impacts. 

257Head drop tests specifying a 60 g head form 

threshold and a drop height of 100 mm. 

258Hallaoui, K.E., Cohen, M., Tylko, S. ‘‘Child 

Restraint Headrest Conformity Test Document.’’ 

April 2017. To be docketed along with this final 

rule. 

259FMVSS No. 213 had a head impact protection 

requirement for rear-facing CRSs that required areas 

contactable by the dummy’s head to be covered 

with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. That 

requirement was removed when the 12-month-old 

CRABI dummy was adopted into FMVSS No. 213 

and HIC was introduced as a performance measure. 

The agency decided against this approach for 

FMVSS No. 213a because not enough is known 

about a foam specification to distinguish between 

effective and ineffective foams. 

final rule, and during the course of the 

testing of the Q3s in support of the 

rulemaking incorporating the dummy 

into 49 CFR part 572,254 NHTSA has not 

learned of any dummy durability issues 

with the Q3s dummy as well. 

3. Head-to-Door Contact 

NHTSA proposed to use the CRABI 

12-month-old ATD to measure head-todoor contact only, and not HIC15, 

noting concerns about the real-world 

relevance of the HIC values measured 

using the CRABI 12-month-old during 

developmental side impact testing. 

NHTSA presented results of 12 tests 

performed with rear-facing CRSs using 

the CRABI 12-month-old that showed 

nearly all of the CRSs exceeded the 

HIC15 injury threshold value of 390, 

which is the injury criteria used in 

FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA hypothesized 

that the CRABI 12-month-old dummy’s 

shoulder and neck were not designed 

for lateral loading, which may influence 

head kinematics prior to contact with 

the CRS/door. Therefore, NHTSA 

concluded that both the severity of the 

resulting head contacts and the response 

of the head to those contacts may not be 

representative of the real world. 

Although tests with the CRABI 12- 

month-old showed many of the CRSs 

did not meet a HIC15 criterion, field 

experience of rear-facing seats indicate 

that the CRSs are very safe in side 

impacts and provide five times more 

protection against serious injury than 

forward-facing seats in side impacts.255

Accordingly, NHTSA has decided to use 

the CRABI 12-month-old to assess safety 

risks related to a CRS’s ability to limit 

head-to-door contact in side crashes. 

The CRABI 12-month-old will provide a 

worst-case assessment of injury risk in 

a side impact in terms of head-to-door 

contact. That is, if the CRS were unable 

to prevent the ATD’s head from 

contacting the door in the test, such an 

outcome is a reasonable indication of an 

unacceptable risk of head contact by the 

human child. NHTSA’s study of 12 tests 

using the CRABI 12-month-old in rearfacing CRSs showed that 1 (Combi 

Shuttle) out of 12 rear-facing CRS 

models tested had head-to-door contact 

during the test. A head-to-door criterion 

for assessing CRSs tested with the 

CRABI 12-month-old will ensure all 

rear-facing seats will have sufficient 

side coverage to protect in side impacts. 

Moreover, the CRABI dummy is a 

suitable test device to assess a CRS’s 

ability to maintain its structural 

integrity in side crashes when 

restraining 1-year-old children 

(discussed further below).256

4. Component Test 

TRL expressed concern about the 

standard’s not measuring loading on the 

12-month-old CRABI dummy in 

rearward-facing seats, and stated that a 

possible unintended consequence could 

be that CRS side structures could be 

stiffened to prevent the head-door 

contact, which could increase loading to 

the child’s head. TRL suggested that 

NHTSA could assess the energy 

absorption capabilities of the CRS in the 

form of a headform drop test measuring 

the ability of the side wings to manage 

impact energy. TRL explained that this 

type of component testing is currently 

conducted as part of the R.44/R.129 

type-approval testing. 

NHTSA considered this matter and 

collaborated with Transport Canada 

(TC) to evaluate new and existing 

component level tests that could 

evaluate the energy-absorption 

capability of the side structure of CRSs. 

Transport Canada evaluated energy 

absorption methodologies (including the 

ECE R.129 head drop test) 257 to 

potentially incorporate into FMVSS No. 

213a and Canada Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (CMVSS) No. 213, but found 

that the procedure in the European 

standard does not adequately 

discriminate between materials that are 

and are not energy absorbing.258 NHTSA 

and TC were unable to find a suitable 

methodology that could be used to 

evaluate energy absorption capabilities 

of the side structure of CRSs.259

5. CRS System Integrity and Energy 

Distribution 

NHTSA proposed to require child 

restraints to maintain system integrity 

when dynamically tested with the Q3s 

and CRABI 12-month-old dummies. 

When a CRS is dynamically tested with 

the appropriate ATD, there could not be 

any complete separation of any loadbearing structural element of the CRS, or 

any partial separation exposing surfaces 

with sharp edges that may contact an 

occupant. These requirements would 

reduce the likelihood that a child using 

the CRS would be injured by the 

collapse or disintegration of the system 

in a side crash, or by contact with the 

interior of the passenger compartment 

or with components of the CRS. 

Injury from contacting protrusions, 

such as the pointed ends of screws 

mounted in padding, would be 

prevented in a similar manner as that 

specified for the frontal crash test in 

FMVSS No. 213. The height of such 

protrusions would be limited to not 

more than 9.5 mm (0.375 inch) above 

any immediately adjacent surface. Also, 

contactable surfaces (surfaces contacted 

by the head or torso of the ATD) could 

not have an edge with a radius of less 

than 6.35 mm (0.25 inch), even under 

padding. Padding would compress in an 

impact and the load imposed on the 

child would be concentrated and 

potentially injurious. 

Comments Received 

CU suggested that NHTSA consider 

acceptance criteria that address the 

ability of the seat to maintain the 

connection between the carrier portion 

of seats and their corresponding bases. 

CU explained that, although separation 

of the carrier and base connection may 

be interpreted as a separated loadbearing structural element per currently 

proposed acceptance criteria, it may 

warrant its own performance 

requirement. CU added that NHTSA 

should consider partial separations in 

load-bearing areas that may significantly 

reduce a seat’s ability to contain its 

occupant or to remain attached to the 

vehicle seat as potential noncompliances with the standard. CU 

explained that rear-facing bases, for 

example, could exhibit significant levels 

of cracking that will never be 

considered contactable, but which could 

potentially significantly degrade a seat’s 

ability to remain attached to a vehicle. 

Agency Response 

Structural integrity will be evaluated 

with the same criteria in the current 

FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1. The objectives 

of the system integrity requirements are 

to prevent ejection from the restraint 

system and to ensure that the system 

does not fracture or separate in such a 

way as to harm the child. Structural 

integrity requirements require CRSs 

dynamically tested with the appropriate 

dummy have no complete separation of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

260 43 FR 21470 (May 18, 1978). 

261 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

262 79 FR at 4582 (Jan. 28, 2014) (citing Sullivan 

et al. (2009), Sullivan et al. (2011)). 

263NPRM, 79 FR at 4590 (Jan. 28, 2014); final 

rule, 85 FR 69898 (Nov. 3, 2020). 

264 ‘‘Repeatability’’ is defined here as the 

similarity of test responses (dummy injury 

measures) when subjected to multiple repeats of a 

given test condition. ‘‘Reproducibility’’ is defined 

as the similarity of test responses subjected to 

repeats of a given test condition in different test 

laboratories. 

265Hyge is a type of acceleration sled. 

266NHTSA–2014–0012–0042, at pg. 2. 267 Id., at pg. 3. 

any load bearing structural element of 

the system or any partial separation 

exposing surfaces with sharp edges that 

may contact an occupant. The agency 

amended FMVSS No. 213 to allow some 

partial separations in response to 

comments from CRS manufacturers that 

stated that some CRS separations (e.g., 

hairline fracturing) could be purposely 

designed into the CRS to improve its 

energy absorption performance.260

NHTSA did not see any cracking or 

evidence of poor infant carrier retention 

during side impact testing. These 

requirements have ensured the 

structural integrity of child restraints in 

frontal impacts for years. The 

commenter did not provide sufficient 

reasons for concluding additional 

requirements for evaluating structural 

integrity are necessary in side impacts. 

IX. Repeatability and Reproducibility 

The Vehicle Safety Act requires 

FMVSS that are practicable, meet the 

need for motor vehicle safety, and stated 

in objective terms.261 In proposing 

FMVSS No. 213a, NHTSA determined 

that the Takata-based test procedure 

produced repeatable results and was 

able to provide results that 

distinguished between the performance 

of various CRS models based on the 

design of the side wings and stiffness of 

the CRS padding.262 Similarly, based on 

evaluations of the Q3s going back to 

2002, the agency determined that the 

Q3s demonstrated good biofidelity, 

repeatability, reproducibility, and 

durability.263 In the NPRM, NHTSA 

outlined its plans to evaluate the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

proposed sled test procedure in 

different laboratories, and sought 

comments on what parameters, 

additional to the proposed 

specifications, should be specified to 

reproduce the test procedure on a 

deceleration sled.264

Several commenters discussed the 

importance of the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the procedure and 

provided suggestions to improve 

repeatability. Dorel emphasized that 

reproducibility between test facilities is 

an essential requirement of an objective 

safety standard and that NHTSA must 

specify the test procedures for its 

FMVSS in sufficient detail to ensure 

that the tests conducted at one test 

facility will yield results that are 

essentially identical to the results at a 

different test facility when the same 

product is tested. Dorel stated that 

reproducibility is critical to the CRS 

industry, and opined that 

reproducibility is a significant challenge 

with current FMVSS No. 213. 

Dorel stated it conducted a series of 

side impact tests of the Safety First Air 

Protect CRS Model at Calspan (a 

commercial testing facility) on a 

Hyge 265 sled utilizing a test fixture 

constructed from the NPRM drawings. 

Dorel said the tests showed HIC15 

values of 313 and 354, while NHTSA’s 

NPRM test data on the same CRS Model 

provided showed HIC15 values of 424, 

566, and 625. Dorel calculated the 

coefficient of variation (CV) of the 

HIC15 values as 8.7 for the Calspan 

tests, while the CV for NHTSA’s tests 

was 19.2 for HIC values. Dorel believed 

that these results indicate a significant 

problem in the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the proposed test 

method. 

Graco stated it conducted more than 

110 side impact crash test trials in 

response to the 2014 proposal and 

studied repeatability and 

reproducibility of 5 types of CRSs (rearfacing infant carrier, rear-facing 

convertible CRS, forward-facing 

convertible CRS, 3-in-1 forward-facing 

CRS, and high-back booster seat). Graco 

stated it tested 8 different CRS models 

multiple times at three crash test 

facilities, using different sized 

dummies, to determine if results are 

repeatable within the same test facility 

and reproducible at different test 

facilities with acceleration-type sleds. 

The commenter stated there was 

significant variation across the test 

facilities and provided HIC15 data of a 

Q3s dummy from the three test facilities 

to illustrate differences in test results 

from different test facilities for a specific 

CRS.266 Graco said there were cases 

where a seat with passing results at a 

specific test facility produced failing 

results at another test facility. Graco 

surmised that the different HIC15 values 

were most likely due to the differences 

in the sliding seat acceleration and in 

head acceleration when the CRS 

impacts the door. Graco explained that 

the test facility that produced the failing 

result at the time the head impacted the 

door, had a greater sliding seat 

acceleration than the other two 

facilities. 

Graco also provided data of chest 

deflection of the Q3s dummy from tests 

conducted at the three test facilities, to 

illustrate differences in the chest 

deflection results at different test 

facilities.267 Graco reiterated that there 

were cases where a CRS with passing 

chest deflection results at one test 

facility produced failing results at other 

test facilities. Graco believed that since 

the timing of these high chest deflection 

measurements occur at the same time as 

the HIC15 measurements, the same 

factors contributed to the variation in 

measurements of chest deflection and 

HIC15 values across the different test 

facilities (i.e., differences in sliding seat 

acceleration and acceleration of the 

thorax at the time of contact with the 

door foam). 

Graco provided initial test data on the 

potential cause of variation and 

provided its recommendations on sled 

design and other factors to reduce the 

variation in results between test 

facilities. 

Britax stated that it is essential that 

the test procedure’s provisions for seat 

and ATD installation are described in 

sufficient detail to ensure consistency in 

test results and ATD measurements. 

Britax also stated that defining 

specifications for variables such as the 

test rig foam and set up are critical to 

achieving repeatable and consistent 

results. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA has modified the SISA to 

minimize sources of variability in the 

test and to make the test setup more 

durable. The modifications reduced 

vibrations that affect accelerometer 

readings, defined accelerometer 

processing and the type and location of 

the accelerometers, and defined a 

different honeycomb with a reduced 

tolerance to minimize variation. 

NHTSA’s modifications also enable the 

SISA to better match the changes to the 

FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact sled test 

seat assembly proposed in the 

November 2, 2020 MAP–21 NPRM, 

supra. These modifications included 

additional stiffening of the seat’s 

framework, an updated D-ring location, 

increased seat back height, simplified 

door and armrest shapes, modified 

lower anchor bracket and tether anchor 

location, defined seating foam, and 

incorporation of a seat cushion 

assembly representative of current 

vehicles. NHTSA also defined in more 

detail the procedure for setting up the 

CRS and ATD prior to testing (including 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39301 

268The test procedure followed during NHTSA’s 

testing can be found in the technical report, 

‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side Impact Test Evaluation and 

Revision,’’ available in the docket of this final rule. 

269Louden & Wietholter (2022). 

270Brelin-Fornari, J., ‘‘Final Report on CRS Side 

Impact Study of Repeatability and Reproducibility 

using a Deceleration Sled,’’ July 2017. Available in 

the docket for this final rule. 

271Wietholter, K. & Louden, A. (2021, November). 

Repeatability and Reproducibility of the FMVSS No. 

213 Side Impact Test. Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

272NHTSA has used CVs to assess the 

repeatability and reproducibility of ATDs 

throughout the history of Part 572, starting in 1975. 

See NPRM for the original subpart B Hybrid II 50th 

percentile male ATD (40 FR 33466; August 8, 1975). 

273The CV values for HIC results in tests 

conducted at VRTC with the CRABI 12-month-old 

dummy were less than 8 percent showing good 

repeatability as well; however, this was analyzed 

for comparison purposes only, as the final FMVSS 

No. 213a test procedure only evaluates CRABI 12- 

month-old head containment on a pass/fail basis. 

arm placement, discussed further in a 

section below), modified SISA drawing 

specifications to eliminate any 

ambiguities, and specified the weight of 

the sliding seat at test facilities, as the 

weight affects the pulse generated by the 

sliding seat/honeycomb impact. 

These modifications improved the 

R&R of the FMVSS No. 213a test. The 

modifications to the SISA reduced the 

variability of test results. Some 

improvements to R&R also resulted from 

further developing the level of detail in 

the test procedure, as suggested by some 

commenters. NHTSA believes that the 

variability in tests manufacturers 

performed at different laboratories was 

partly because there was no detailed test 

procedure during the NPRM phase 

specifying how the FMVSS No. 213a 

test should be conducted. 

With a detailed test procedure, 

NHTSA tests at two different test 

facilities with different sled systems 

(acceleration and deceleration types) 

were able to produce repeatable and 

reproducible results.268 The details of 

the improvements are described at 

length in the technical reports by 

VRTC269 and NHTSA/Kettering.270 The 

updated technical drawings of the SISA 

are available in the docket of this final 

rule. 

After improving the test procedure 

and SISA, the agency conducted tests on 

six CRS models to evaluate repeatability 

at VRTC with the acceleration sled, and 

on five of the same six CRS models to 

evaluate repeatability at Kettering 

University with the deceleration sled. 

NHTSA sought to evaluate the 

reproducibility of the test results from 

the two test facilities.271 The coefficient 

of variation (CV) 272 was used to 

objectively evaluate the repeatability 

and reproducibility of the FMVSS No. 

213a side test fixtures and procedures. 

The CV is calculated by dividing the 

standard deviation by the average; 

multiplying the CV by 100 computes the 

percent CV. For assessing repeatability 

and reproducibility, a CV value less 

than or equal to 5 percent was 

considered as excellent, a CV value 

between 5 and 10 percent was 

considered as good, a CV value between 

10 and 15 as marginal, and CV values 

above 15 were considered poor. Since 

variation in test results is likely 

contributable to more than just the test 

fixtures, dummies and procedure, a 

percent CV at or below 10 percent 

indicates results are similar. Other 

sources of variability include, but are 

not limited to, pulse variation, and 

variability related to differences in the 

CRS test specimens as produced. 

The test program showed good to 

excellent repeatability and 

reproducibility in the test results. Table 

24 shows the CRS models, orientation 

and CV values at each of the two test 

facilities to evaluate repeatability. The 

CV values for HIC and chest deflection 

in tests conducted at VRTC with the Q3s 

dummy were less than 5 percent and are 

considered excellent for repeatability.273

The CV values for HIC and chest 

deflection in tests conducted at 

Kettering with the Q3s dummy were 

less than 5 percent (except for chest 

deflection measured in the rear-facing 

convertible (Graco Comfort Sport) 

which had a CV value of 16.1 percent). 

TABLE 24—COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (CV) FOR ASSESSING REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY

ATD CRS Orientation 

VRTC CV% Kettering CV% VRTC and Kettering 

H1C15 Chest 

deflection H1C15 Chest deflection H1C15 Chest deflection 

Q3s Evenflo Maestro.FF Combination **.4.3 1.3 4.4 1.4 4.2 1.2 

Q3s Grace Comfort 

Sport.

FF Convertible **.4 3.1 2.1 1.9 3.4 3.6 

Q3s Grace Comfort 

Sport.

RF Convertible 3.6 2.5 3 16.1 16 ¥10.5 

Q3s Diono Olympia *.RF Convertible 2.3 

* The Diono Olympia had fewer tests per test facility compared to the rest in this analysis. The Diono Olympia was tested once at VRTC and 

twice at Kettering. The CV for Chest Deflection was not calculated as an instrumentation problem caused an erroneous reading in the test at 

VRTC. 

** All forward-facing CRSs were installed using the lower anchors and tether anchor of CRAS and all rear-facing CRSs were installed using 

lower anchors only. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

274Three repeat tests were performed for each 

model. Test results are documented in the technical 

report DOT HS 811 994 and 995. Brelin-Fornarni, 

J., ‘‘Development of NHTSA’s Side Impact Test 

Procedure for Child Restraint Systems Using a 

Deceleration Sled: Final Report, Part 1. April 2014. 

Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

files/811994-sideimpcttest-chrestraintdecelsled_

pt1.pdf and Brelin-Fornarni, J., ‘‘Development of 

NHTSA’s Side Impact Test Procedure for Child 

Restraint Systems Using a Deceleration Sled: Final 

Report, Part 2. May 2014. Links: https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811994- 

sideimpcttest-chrestraintdecelsled_pt1.pdf and 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/ 

documents/811995-sideimpcttestchrestraintdecelsled_pt2.pdf. 

275These tests were performed with the NPRM 

proposed SISA and honeycomb; however, as 

discussed above, updates to the SISA since the 

NPRM did not affect results. Therefore, we consider 

the repeatability results of the NPRM tests with the 

deceleration type sled valid. 

276Wietholter, K. & Louden, A. (November 2021). 

Repeatability and Reproducibility of the FMVSS No. 

213 Side Impact Test. Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

277See the following report for documented 

accelerometer placement trials. Louden, A., & 

Wietholter, K. (September 2022). FMVSS No. 213 

side impact test evaluation and revision (Report No. 

DOT HS 812 791). Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter 

Louden & Wietholter (2022)). Available in the 

docket of this final rule. 

It is unknown why the results for the 

Graco rear-facing convertible were 

elevated; NHTSA could not perform 

additional testing under the contract. 

Possibilities include limited testing, 

variation in test set-up, variation in the 

overall relative velocity at impact time 

(while within the tolerance it was 

higher than other repeat tests) and/or 

other factors (i.e. CRS sensitivity). CVs 

obtained elsewhere were not as high 

and were in the acceptable range. While 

not part of this test series, during the 

development of the NPRM, NHTSA/ 

Kettering performed side impact tests 

with a deceleration-type sled. Tests with 

the Combi Zeus and Britax Advocate in 

rear-facing configuration with the Q3s 

dummy 274 showed CV values of only 

4.9 percent and 4.2 percent respectively 

for chest displacement. These results 

show an excellent CV for chest 

displacement in testing with a 

deceleration-type sled test.275 NHTSA 

believes that more tests at Kettering 

troubleshooting the increased CV value 

of 16.1 percent would have resulted in 

a reduced CV. 

The tests performed with the CRABI 

12-month-old dummy (see Table 25 

below) provided consistent head contact 

results at each test facility (that is, the 

result of whether there was contact of 

the head with the door was the same for 

all the repeat tests with the same CRS 

in both test facilities). 

TABLE 25—SIDE IMPACT TESTS USING THE CRABI 12-MONTH-OLD DUMMY

CRS Orientation VRTC Kettering Door contact 

Chicco KeyFit 30 ............................................ Rear Facing .................................................... 3 3 No. 

Britax Boulevard ............................................. Rear Facing .................................................... 3 3 No. 

Cosco Apt 40 .................................................. Forward Facing .............................................. 3 1 No. 

The CV values for HIC and chest 

deflection measures for each CRS model 

from tests conducted in both test 

facilities with the Q3s dummy 

considered together were generally 

lower than 5 percent. Only one CRS 

model in rear-facing configuration using 

the Q3s dummy at both test facilities 

had a CV value of 10.5 percent for chest 

deflection and a 16 percent CV for 

HIC15 when the data from the two test 

facilities for this CRS were combined. 

While these results suggest that HIC 

measures of the Q3s dummy in rearfacing CRSs have poor reproducibility 

(high CV values), this result is based on 

test data of one CRS model (Graco 

Comfort Sport), which also had poor 

repeatability measures in one of the test 

facilities. As discussed above, it is 

unknown why this CRS had poor 

repeatability. The CV of HIC15 measures 

from a more limited set of tests with the 

Diono Olympia CRS in the rear-facing 

configuration using the Q3s dummy 

(one test at VRTC and two tests at 

Kettering) was 2.3 percent, showing 

excellent repeatability in a rear-facing 

CRS with the Q3s dummy. Details on 

the repeatability and reproducibility 

analysis can be found in the docket for 

this final rule.276

The CV analysis confirms good 

repeatability and reproducibility of HIC 

and chest deflection measures in 

forward-facing CRSs tested with the Q3s 

dummy. Rear-facing infant tests with 

the CRABI 12-month old showed good 

repeatability and reproducibility for 

assessing head-to-door contact. CV 

analysis of rear-facing convertible CRSs 

with the Q3s had inconclusive results, 

possibly due to the limited number of 

data points. The limited test series 

between the two test facilities with a 

rear-facing convertible (Diono Olympia) 

showed HIC15 had a 2.5 percent CV, 

showing good repeatability and 

reproducibility with a rear-facing CRSs 

tested with the Q3s dummy. Chest 

deflection could not be computed as the 

test at VRTC had an erroneous chest 

deflection reading. 

NHTSA’s CV analysis of the side 

impact tests with the final configuration 

of the SISA demonstrates that the 

changes to the configuration of the SISA 

and adoption of some of the 

modifications suggested by commenters 

(see next section), have addressed the 

repeatability and reproducibility 

concerns raised by the commenters. 

NHTSA has found the variability in the 

performance measures is within 

acceptable levels; the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the side impact test is 

considered good to excellent. 

Accordingly, NHTSA has determined 

that the side impact test, using the 

dummies specified in the standard to 

determine compliance with the 

standard, produces repeatable and 

reproducible results in repeat tests in 

the same facility and in multiple tests 

across different test facilities. 

Commenters’ Other Suggestions 

Accelerometer Placement 

Graco recommended that NHTSA 

provide specifications for accelerometer 

placement and accepted types, so that 

data acquisition for velocity and 

acceleration could be more consistent 

between test facilities. Graco noted it 

saw differences in test labs’ 

interpretations of the proposed side 

impact testing specifications for using 

the accelerometers, and provided a 

diagram of differing accelerometer 

placement locations between facilities. 

The commenter also provided an 

acceleration plot demonstrating how 

different accelerometer types represent 

the acceleration pulse differently. Graco 

stated that by defining the location and 

accepted options for dampened 

accelerometers, acceleration and 

velocity measurements can be more 

standardized to prevent inconsistent 

calculations of raw data. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA tested many accelerometer 

locations 277 on the sliding seat and 

determined that the final placement of 

the accelerometers will be on the right 

rear seat assembly leg at predetermined 

locations; with the primary 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39303 

278This information is discussed in detail in 

NHTSA’s ‘‘FMVSS No. 213 Side Impact Test 

Evaluation and Revision’’ report. 

279 During the agency’s testing, we found that the 

type of accelerometer (damped, undamped, 

ruggedized, etc.) has an effect on the results as 

different accelerometers may pick up different 

vibration levels. 

280Additional pictures to illustrate the seat belt 

sliding behind the seat back are available in the 

docket for this final rule. 

281Additional pictures to illustrate the seat belt 

sliding behind the seat back are available in the 

docket for this final rule. 

282 44 FR 72131 (December 13, 1979), 45 FR 

27045, seat assembly updated, 68 FR 37620 (June 

24, 2003). 

283MAP–21 (§ 31501(b)(2)) requires NHTSA to 

issue a final rule to amend Standard No. 213 to 

better simulate a single representative motor vehicle 

rear seat. The regulation information number (RIN) 

for the rulemaking is RIN 2127–AL34. It may be 

tracked in the U.S. government’s Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. 

accelerometer to be mounted on top and 

the redundant to be mounted 31 

millimeters below.278 The selected 

locations produced the more consistent 

and less noisy measurements during 

testing. The final locations of the 

accelerometers are specified in the final 

drawing package. The final drawings 

have also been modified so that the 

accelerometer specifications allow 

compliance test facilities to use different 

brands of accelerometers and prevent 

sourcing issues in the future.279

Belt Engagement 

Graco stated it found that, during the 

time of engagement between the 

aluminum honeycomb and the impact 

surface of the sliding seat, the Type 2 

shoulder belt is engaged with the door 

structure, which can affect the sliding 

seat acceleration pulse. Graco provided 

images that it believed demonstrates the 

interference of the shoulder belt 

webbing, and a graph that displays a 

modified acceleration pulse profile 

caused by this interference, compared to 

an acceleration profile without this 

interference. Graco recommended 

NHTSA consider removing this 

interference of the Type 2 shoulder belt 

as a control for repeatability of the 

acceleration pulse. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA’s testing with the CRS 

installed using the Type 2 (lap/shoulder 

belt) showed no interference of the 

shoulder portion of the Type 2 belt with 

the door.280 The agency found that in 

testing, the shoulder portion of the Type 

2 belt slides behind the door during 

contact of the sliding seat with the door. 

This interaction did not affect the 

sliding seat acceleration pulse or any of 

the performance measures. 

NHTSA also performed a static trial 

with the Graco Nautilus, which is the 

model Graco showed had seatbelt-door 

interaction. In that trial, the seat belt 

webbing lay flat against the top of the 

seat back, which would allow the seat 

back to go through the door and seat 

back gap.281 NHTSA was not able to 

reproduce Graco’s seat belt interaction 

with the door. The agency believes that 

any possible seatbelt-door interaction is 

avoided by ensuring the seat belt lies 

flat against the seat back. The test 

procedure will incorporate a step to 

ensure the seat belt lies flat before 

testing. 

Test Facilities 

Dorel expressed concerns about test 

facilities conducting compliance tests 

for NHTSA not following the agency’s 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance’s 

(OVSC’s) published test procedures and 

not obtaining OVSC’s express 

permission to deviate. The commenter 

urged NHTSA to increase oversight of 

the test labs to enhance repeatability 

and reproducibility of the compliance 

test results. In response, NHTSA has 

reviewed its compliance program and 

has not found evidence of the problem 

the commenter describes. NHTSA is 

nonetheless concerned about assertions 

that deviations from protocols have 

reduced the integrity of the FMVSS No. 

213 tests, so it is emphasizing again to 

its test lab to use the open and strong 

channels of communication set up by 

OVSC for any questions about test 

procedures or practices. Further, the 

agency will unreservedly consider ways 

to improve any issue arising in the 

course of OVSC testing that impact the 

quality of the compliance test program. 

Dorel stated that it has had concerns 

about the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the current frontal 

impact sled test in FMVSS No. 213. In 

response, the frontal impact sled test 

has been effectively used in FMVSS No. 

213 compliance tests for over forty years 

and is instrumental in the assessment of 

a child restraint’s real-world 

performance in a crash.282 In 2020, 

NHTSA took steps to update the sled 

assembly and strengthen its technical 

underpinnings by way of the November 

2, 2020 NPRM responding to MAP– 

21.283 The agency is analyzing 

comments received on that NPRM and 

will address all relevant comments 

relating to the R&R of the frontal sled 

assembly in the final rule. 

X. Lead Time and Effective Date 

NHTSA proposed a compliance date 

of three years from the date of 

publication of the final rule, meaning 

that CRSs manufactured on or after that 

date must meet FMVSS No. 213a. 

NHTSA proposed to permit optional 

early compliance with the requirements, 

to permit manufacturers the option of 

meeting FMVSS No. 213a sooner than 

the 3-year compliance date and 

certifying the compliance of their 

products to the standard. 

NHTSA discussed in the NPRM its 

tentative determination that there was 

good cause to provide three years of 

lead time. The agency believed three 

years was a reasonable time for CRS 

manufacturers to gain familiarity with 

the new side impact standard, the test 

using the SISA, and the Q3s dummy 

adopted by the standard. Manufacturers 

would have to assess the entirety of 

their product line for conformance to 

the new standard, devise and 

incorporate any needed design changes 

to meet the standard, implement the 

changes in manufacturing processes for 

the seats, and certify the compliance of 

the child restraints. NHTSA believed 

that three years of lead time provides a 

timeframe that allows manufacturers to 

achieve these actions while ensuring the 

enhanced side impact protection 

adopted by FMVSS No. 213a is attained 

as quickly as possible. 

Comments Received 

Commenters diverged as to the need 

for a three-year lead time. Child 

restraint manufacturers commenting on 

this issue agreed with the proposed lead 

time. Dorel concurred that a three-year 

lead time was sufficient, but 

conditioned its support for this lead 

time on NHTSA’s findings that the test 

procedure was sufficiently objective to 

eliminate test-to-test repeatability 

problems and test facility-to-facility 

reproducibility problems. In contrast, 

Safe Ride News (SRN), Safe Kids 

Worldwide, Mr. Hauschild, Consumers 

Union (CU), and ARRCA suggested a 

reduced lead time, from 18 months to 

two years at the most (SRN and Safe 

Kids). 

Some of the latter commenters argued 

that manufacturers have already 

incorporated side impact protection into 

many of their products, and that the 

number of children who could be 

protected by a side impact standard is 

significant enough to shorten the lead 

time. Mr. Hauschild stated that, since 

many of the CRS manufacturers are 

advertising that their CRSs have side 

impact protection or that their seats 

have been side impact tested, they 

should have no problem meeting the 

lead time requirements, and may be able 

to meet the requirement sooner. CU 

urged NHTSA to shorten the three-year 

compliance deadline, arguing that 

MAP–21 was issued in 2012, and that, 

even then, NHTSA had been working on 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

284Wietholter & Louden (2021). 

285The Q3s dummy was adopted in a final rule 

published on November 3, 2020 (85 FR 69898). 

While the agency was developing the final rule, the 

agency realized that some of the Q3s dummies that 

had been delivered to CRS manufacturers and test 

facilities following the publication of the 2014 

NPRM did not meet the specifications NHTSA had 

proposed for the dummy. The three-year lead time 

provides time to CRS manufacturers that had tested 

with those out-of-spec dummies to acquire 

dummies that meet the necessary qualifications, 

and reassess their CRSs as appropriate. 

286MAP–21, Section 31502. NHTSA published an 

NPRM on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3744). The RIN 

for the rulemaking is 2127–AL20. It may be tracked 

in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions. 

287 49 U.S.C. 30113(d). 

288The FRIA discusses issues relating to the 

estimated cost, benefits, and other impacts of this 

regulatory action. The FRIA is available in the 

docket for this final rule and may be obtained by 

downloading it or by contacting Docket 

Management at the address or telephone number 

provided at the beginning of this document. 

a side protection standard for years, 

which should have provided notice to 

manufacturers that such new side 

impact requirements were coming. 

ARRCA believed the FMVSS No. 213a 

test procedure is not complex and that 

test facilities should be able to configure 

their sleds with the required hardware 

within a month of the final rule being 

published. ARRCA believed that 

upgrading the CRSs that do not comply 

or removing them from the market 

should be capable of being 

accomplished within a year of the final 

rule. ARRCA argued that, under 

NHTSA’s preliminary cost-benefit 

analysis for the NPRM, a one-year 

effective date would save the lives of 

approximately 36 children. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA is adopting the proposed lead 

time of three years from the publication 

date of this final rule. In response to 

Dorel, the test procedure has been 

demonstrated to be both repeatable and 

reproducible, as discussed above and in 

detail in the report, ‘‘Repeatability and 

Reproducibility of the FMVSS No. 213 

Side Impact Test,’’ 284 so the provided 

lead time will be sufficient. 

In response to commenters seeking a 

shorter lead time, NHTSA has decided 

against a compliance date less than 

three years from the date of publication 

of this final rule for several reasons. 

This final rule makes modifications to 

the SISA to minimize sources of 

variability in the test, make the test 

setup more durable and increase the 

representativeness of the SISA to 

today’s vehicles. The rule matches the 

SISA to the FMVSS No. 213 frontal 

impact sled test seat assembly proposed 

in the November 2, 2020 NPRM, supra. 

This final rule also defines in more 

detail the procedure for setting up the 

CRS and ATD prior to testing (including 

arm placement, which can affect test 

results), specifies the weight of the 

sliding seat at test facilities, and makes 

other changes to improve the R&R of the 

test. Manufacturers will need time to 

become familiar with the SISA as set 

forth in this final rule and will need 

time to test their child restraints on the 

SISA adopted by this final rule. The 

agency believes manufacturers will seek 

to test their products on the SISA, and 

with the Q3s dummy, to maximize the 

possibility that the test they use for 

certifying their products aligns with the 

test NHTSA uses in the FMVSS No. 

213a compliance test. The agency 

adopted the Q3s into regulation by a 

final rule only in 2020, so 

manufacturers will need time to acquire 

and test with the dummy.285

In addition, as shown in NHTSA’s 

2017 testing of CRSs on the SISA 

adopted by this final rule, most of the 

child restraints tested then did not meet 

the FMVSS No. 213a performance 

criteria. These data indicate a need for 

CRSs to be re-engineered and reassessed 

in their use of side wings, padding and 

other countermeasures in providing side 

impact protection. Further, this final 

rule specifies that CRSs will also have 

to be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 

213a when attached by a Type 2 (lap/ 

shoulder seat belt) in addition to the 

CRAS. Manufacturers will need time to 

assess the performance of their CRSs 

when attached to the SISA by way of the 

belt system, and redesign their restraints 

with compliant countermeasures as 

appropriate. 

Lastly, NHTSA has a number of 

ongoing rulemakings mandated by 

MAP–21 for child restraints. In addition 

to this final rule, as noted throughout 

this document MAP–21 directed 

NHTSA to update the seat assembly 

used in the frontal crash test of FMVSS 

No. 213. MAP–21 also directed NHTSA 

to undertake rulemaking to improve the 

ease of use of CRAS.286 A three-year 

lead time provides time to 

manufacturers to adjust their 

manufacturing processes to respond to 

regulatory changes made by these 

actions and redesign CRS models, to the 

extent possible, within their design 

cycle to minimize the cost impacts on 

consumers. For the reasons explained 

above, NHTSA finds good cause to have 

an effective date of three years following 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register.287

XI. Regulatory Notices anD Analyses 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

The agency has considered the impact 

of this rulemaking action under E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department 

of Transportation’s regulatory 

procedures. This rulemaking is 

considered ‘‘significant’’ and was 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ 

This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213 

to adopt side impact performance 

requirements for child restraint systems 

designed to seat children in a weight 

range that includes weights up to 18.1 

kg (40 lb). The requirements are set forth 

in FMVSS No. 213a, which specifies 

that the child restraints meet the 

requirements in a dynamic test 

simulating a vehicle-to-vehicle side 

impact. The side impact test of FMVSS 

No. 213a is additional to the current 

frontal impact tests of FMVSS No. 213. 

NHTSA has prepared a final 

regulatory impact analysis (FRIA) that 

assesses the cost and benefits of this 

final rule.288 The FRIA follows a 

preliminary RIA (PRIA) that was issued 

in support of the NPRM. The PRIA 

evaluated the countermeasures the 

agency tentatively determined may be 

needed for CRSs to meet the proposed 

performance requirements, and the 

benefits of those changes to the target 

population (children restrained in a CRS 

in a side impact). At the time of the 

PRIA, NHTSA believed that CRS 

manufacturers were already designing 

CRSs to address side impacts, and that 

generally only minor changes in design 

for forward- and rear-facing child 

restraints would be needed to enable 

child restraints to pass the test proposed 

in the NPRM. NHTSA tentatively 

determined that adding energyabsorbing padding to the CRS around 

the head area of the child and to the side 

structures (CRS side ‘‘wings’’) would 

likely be sufficient for CRSs to meet the 

proposed requirements. Accordingly, 

NHTSA estimated the costs and benefits 

of adding such padding to CRSs and 

requested comment on the issue. 

The PRIA determined that the rule 

would be cost beneficial. NHTSA 

estimated that adding padding to the 

head area and wings of the CRS would 

reduce the likelihood of injuries by 3.7 

fatalities and 41 injuries when all child 

restraints sold on the market met the 

proposed test criteria limits. These 

impacts would accrue to an economic 

benefit of $168.97 million at a 3 percent 

discount rate and $152.16 million at a 

7 percent discount rate. NHTSA 

estimated the cost of the proposed rule 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39305 

289The agency believed that the cost of a 

compliance test (estimated at $1,300) spread over 

the number of units sold of that child restraint 

model was very small, especially when compared 

to the price of a child restraint. We estimated that 

127 CRS models comprised the 11.3 million CRSs 

sold annually for children weighing up to 40 lb, 

which have an average model life of 5 years. 

Therefore, the annual cost of testing new CRS 

models was estimated to be $830,123. This testing 

cost, distributed among the 11.3 million CRSs sold 

annually, amounted to less than $0.01 per CRS. 

290See the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(FRIA) for more details on the analysis. The FRIA 

is available in the docket for this final rule and may 

be obtained by downloading it or by contacting 

Docket Management at the address or telephone 

number provided at the beginning of this document. 

at about $7.37 million, with $830,123 of 

that attributed to the cost of testing all 

child restraint models. The 

countermeasures were estimated to be 

larger wings (side structure) and 

padding with energy-absorption 

characteristics that would have a retail 

cost of approximately $0.58 per CRS.289

Discussion 

As discussed at the beginning of this 

document, most of the comments 

supported the rulemaking proposal but 

a few did not. Comments in opposition 

or expressing concerns (from Dr. Baer, 

UMTRI and IIHS), were discussed at 

length in Section V of this preamble, as 

was NHTSA’s response to those 

comments, and will not be repeated 

here. Several other individuals did not 

favor the proposal. Mr. Michael 

Montalbano expressed concern about 

the assumptions NHTSA used for the 

cost benefit analysis, stating that the 

NPRM indicated that 45 percent of child 

fatalities ‘‘occurred where the child was 

not wearing [sic] a CRS’’ and that side 

crashes resulting in fatalities to children 

in CRSs mainly occur in very severe, 

un-survivable side impact conditions. 

Mr. Montalbano asked: ‘‘Will these side 

impact requirements be effective given 

that nearly half of child fatalities occur 

when CRSs are not used, and when 

CRSs are used, most children die from 

un-survivable side impact conditions?’’ 

Conversely, a law student group stated 

that ‘‘even though the benefits are not 

extreme, the benefits still outweigh the 

comparatively small costs associated 

with this additional testing.’’ 

In response to Mr. Montalbano, 

NHTSA’s cost benefit analysis assumes 

that children who do not use CRSs will 

not benefit from this rulemaking, as the 

standard applies to the CRS products, 

and does not require their use. However, 

as discussed previously, NHTSA is 

actively involved in increasing the use 

of CRSs and the correct use of restraint 

systems through other efforts. These 

efforts include developing and 

distributing training videos, producing 

public safety announcements and 

various campaigns directed to caregivers 

of children (in English, Spanish and 

other languages), leveraging all 

communication resources (such as 

social media and the NHTSA website) to 

provide information to parents and 

other caregivers, and expanding and 

supporting the child passenger safety 

technician (CPST) curriculum used to 

train and certify CRS fitting station 

technicians. Also, while this rulemaking 

does not directly address the 45 percent 

of fatalities that occur in very severe, 

un-survivable crashes, there may be 

some circumstances where a child 

might benefit from a CRS equipped with 

side impact protection by reducing the 

severity of the injuries in a severe crash. 

UMTRI stated that costs involving the 

purchase of the Q3s ATD, new 

instrumentation (IR–TRACC) and buck 

manufacturing should be included in 

cost estimates as this adds to the yearly 

cost of testing. NHTSA conducted an 

analysis 290 to evaluate the annual cost 

of owning, operating, and maintaining 

the equipment and test devices needed 

for conducting the required tests and 

found that they would be very small 

when the costs are spread over the 

expected lifetime of these equipment 

and test devices. 

Dorel stated its concern about a 

potential overlapping of a side impact 

rulemaking with the new FMVSS No. 

213 on frontal impact protection, and 

the cost impacts of having to produce 

CRSs to rules that are introduced at 

different times. Dorel explained that it 

would need to evaluate the costs of a 

side impact test along any new 

proposed frontal impact test in 

conjunction with a new side impact test 

to fully comment on a cost analysis, and 

that without testing data of both side 

impact and frontal impact tests it could 

only estimate in broad terms at that 

time. Dorel added that in terms of 

redesign, retooling, and manufacturing 

startup costs, such an undertaking can 

range from product modification to 

product obsolescence. Dorel explained 

that a single ground up project of a 

single platform for a single set of tooling 

can range anywhere from $1.5–$2.5 

million and that multiples of tooling can 

range $500 thousand upward to $1.5 

million depending on the type and 

design of CRS. Dorel added that 

manufacturers would have to increase 

resources in a very short time and that 

typical development times from start to 

production in mass quantity could range 

from 18–24 months. Dorel argued that 

this could pose a major disruption of 

supply meeting customer demand, and 

that it prefers a synchronization of both 

standards so as to afford the design and 

development process and costs to 

consolidate to meet both new 

regulations. 

In response to Dorel, we note that 

both this side impact final rule and a 

final rule upgrading the frontal impact 

seat assembly of FMVSS No. 213 (see 

NPRM, 85 FR 69388) are mandated by 

MAP–21. Nonetheless, while we believe 

the new side impact requirements 

adopted in this final rule will result in 

design changes to the CRS designs, 

NHTSA does not believe that the frontal 

impact changes will necessitate 

extensive CRS design changes as it 

appears most CRSs already meet the 

proposed rule’s substantive 

requirements. (Some labeling changes 

may be needed.) Further, once NHTSA 

knows the timing of the frontal upgrade 

final rule, NHTSA will keep Dorel’s 

concerns in mind to see if adjusting lead 

times would be appropriate and 

consistent with the Safety Act. 

In developing the 2014 NPRM, 

NHTSA considered HIC15 requirements 

of 400 and 800 as alternatives to the 

preferred proposal of HIC15 of 570. The 

PRIA for the NPRM provided an 

assessment of benefits and costs of the 

HIC15 of 400 and 800 alternatives. Of 

the alternatives presented for HIC15, 

NHTSA has decided in this final rule on 

its preferred alternative of 570. This 

threshold value achieves a reasonable 

balance of practicability, safety, and 

cost. The HIC15 threshold of 570 is used 

in FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash 

protection,’’ for the 3-year-old child 

dummy. It is a scaled threshold based 

on FMVSS No. 208’s criterion for the 

50th percentile adult male dummy, 

which was adjusted to the 3-year-old 

using a process that accounts for 

differences in geometric size and 

material strength. HIC15 of 570 

corresponds to an 11 percent risk of AIS 

3+ injury and a 1.6 percent risk of 

fatality. The 570 scaled maximum will 

protect children in child restraints from 

an unreasonable risk of fatality and 

serious injury in side impacts. 

Comparing the three alternatives (at 

the 7 percent discount rate), an 800 

HIC15 limit results in: (a) many fewer 

equivalent lives saved than the 570 

HIC15 limit (7.24 vs. 18.26); (b) higher 

cost per equivalent life saved ($488,000 

vs. $242,000); and, (c) lower net benefits 

($63 million vs. $162 million). Thus, on 

all three measures, 800 HIC15 achieves 

fewer NHTSA goals as compared to the 

570 HIC15. 

The 400 HIC15 alternative results in: 

(a) more equivalent lives saved than the 

570 HIC15 limit (28.87 vs. 18.26); higher 

cost per equivalent life saved ($314,000 

vs. $242,000); and, (c) higher net 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39306 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

291MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale) 

represents the maximum injury severity of an 

occupant based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale 

(AIS). AIS ranks individual injuries by body region 

on a scale of 1 to 6: 1=minor, 2=moderate, 

3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum 

(untreatable). MAIS 3+ injuries represent MAIS 

injuries at an AIS level of 3, 4, 5, or 6. 

292NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (FRIA) that discusses issues 

relating to the estimated costs, benefits, and other 

impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is 

available in the docket for this final rule and may 

be obtained by downloading it or by contacting 

Docket Management at the address or telephone 

number provided at the beginning of this document. 

293http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/ 

VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf 

benefits ($250 million vs. $162 million). 

Thus, on two of the three measures, at 

first glance 400 HIC15 has appeal 

compared to the 570 HIC15 limit. 

However, NHTSA is concerned about 

the effect of a 400 HIC15 limit on child 

restraint design and use and did not 

have information to address those 

concerns sufficiently. The agency is 

concerned that the cost estimates 

utilized may not take into account 

changes necessary to meet the 400 

HIC15 limit. We believe that padding 

alone would be insufficient to meet a 

400 HIC15 limit, and that a structural 

improvement to the side of the seats 

would be needed in addition to 

padding. We did not receive data on 

which to determine what structural or 

other changes would be needed to meet 

a 400 HIC15 reference, or whether the 

structural modifications can be 

implemented to meet the 400 HIC15 

criterion at the cost we assumed. 

Moreover, NHTSA is concerned that 

one method of potential compliance 

with a 400 HIC15 limit could cause 

unintended negative consequences not 

assessed in our estimate of costs. We 

believe that manufacturers could 

possibly increase padding to meet a 400 

HIC15 limit. Thicker padding around 

the head area could reduce the space 

provided for the child’s head, which 

may make the child restraint 

uncomfortable and confining for the 

child. The restricted space for the 

child’s head could reduce the ability of 

the seated child to move his or her head 

freely, which could affect acceptability 

and use of the harness-equipped ageappropriate child restraints. 

Alternatively, if manufacturers decided 

to increase the thickness of the padding 

in the head area and widen the CRS to 

retain the current space between the 

child’s head and side padding, the child 

restraint would have to be made wider 

and heavier. Again, this might affect the 

overall use of the child restraint. 

Considering all of these factors, NHTSA 

has chosen 570 HIC15 as the best overall 

reference value with known 

consequences that can be met with a 

reasonable thickness of padding alone. 

This final rule reduces 3.7 fatalities 

and 41 (40.9) serious non-fatal injuries 

(MAIS 291 4–5) annually (see Table 26 

below).292 The equivalent lives and the 

monetized benefits were estimated in 

accordance with guidance issued March 

2021 by the Office of the Secretary 293

regarding the treatment of value of a 

statistical life in regulatory analyses. 

This final rule is estimated to save 15.1 

equivalent lives annually. The 

monetized annual benefits of the rule at 

3 and 7 percent discount rates are 

$169.0 million and $152.1 million, 

respectively (Table 27). The annual cost 

of this final rule is estimated at 

approximately $7.37 million. The 

countermeasures may include larger 

wings and padding with energy 

absorption characteristics that cost, on 

average, approximately $0.58 per CRS 

designed for children in a weight range 

that includes weights up to 40 lb (both 

forward-facing and rear-facing) (Table 

28 below). The annual net benefits are 

estimated to be $144.8 million (7 

percent discount rate) to $161.6 million 

(3 percent discount rate) as shown in 

Table 29. Because the rule is cost 

beneficial just by comparing costs to 

monetized economic benefits, and there 

is a net benefit, it is unnecessary to 

provide a net cost per equivalent life 

saved since no value would be provided 

by such an estimate. 

TABLE 26—ESTIMATED BENEFITS

Fatalities ............................... 3.7 

Non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1 to 

5) ....................................... 41 (40.9) 

TABLE 27—ESTIMATED MONETIZED BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Economic 

benefits 

Value 

of statistical 

life 

Total benefits 

3 Percent Discount Rate ............................................................................................................. $26.24 $142.72 $168.97 

7 Percent Discount Rate ............................................................................................................. 23.63 128.53 152.16 

TABLE 28—ESTIMATED COSTS (2020 ECONOMICS) 

Average cost per CRS designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 40 lb ................................................... $0.58 

Total incremental CRS cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 6.54 million 

Testing costs ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 830,123 

Total annual cost .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7.37 million 

TABLE 29—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS

[In millions of 2020 dollars] 

Annualized 

costs 

Annualized 

benefits Net benefits 

3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ $7.37 $168.97 $161.60 

7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ 7.37 152.16 144.79 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39307 

294Currently, FMVSS No. 213 prohibits 

manufacturers from recommending belt-positioning 

seats for children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). 

NHTSA has proposed increasing this weight limit 

to 18.1 kg (40 lb) (85 FR 69388). If adopted, the 

weight threshold would also have the effect of 

excluding booster seats from the application of 

FMVSS No. 213a. 

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 final rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

NHTSA estimates there to be 29 

manufacturers of child restraints, none 

of which are small businesses. Based on 

our fleet testing, we believe that most of 

the CRSs that are subject to the side 

impact requirements will meet the 

requirements without substantial 

modification. For rear-facing infant seats 

and forward-facing restraints with 

harnesses that need to be modified, the 

agency estimates that the average 

incremental costs to each child restraint 

system would be only $0.58 per unit to 

meet this final rule. This incremental 

cost will not constitute a significant 

economic impact. Further, the 

incremental cost is not significant 

compared to the retail price of a child 

restraint system for infants and toddlers, 

which is in the range of $45 to $350. 

For belt-positioning seats that will not 

be able to meet the side impact 

requirements adopted by this final rule, 

the simplest course for a manufacturer 

will be to re-label the restraint prior to 

introduction into interstate commerce 

so that it is marketed for children not in 

a weight class that will subject the CRS 

to the rule’s requirements. That is, the 

CRSs could be marketed as beltpositioning seats for children weighing 

more than 18.1 kg (40 lb), instead of for 

children weighing above 13.6 kg (30 

lb).294

The agency believes that the cost of 

conducting the test described in this 

final rule (estimated at $1,543) spread 

over the number of units sold of that 

child restraint model will be very small, 

especially when compared to the price 

of a child restraint. We estimate that 127 

CRS models comprise the 11.3 million 

CRSs that include recommended 

weights for children weighing up to 40 

pounds. The average model life is 

estimated to be 5 years. Therefore, we 

estimate that, assuming manufacturers 

will be conducting the dynamic test 

specified in this final rule to certify 

their child restraints to the new side 

impact requirements, the annual cost of 

testing new CRS models will be 

$830,123. This testing cost, distributed 

among the 11.3 million CRSs sold 

annually with an average model life of 

5 years, will be less than $0.01 per CRS. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this final rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule will not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. Section 

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

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. The express 

preemption provision described above 

is subject to a savings clause under 

which ‘‘[c]ompliance with a motor 

vehicle safety standard prescribed under 

this chapter does not exempt a person 

from liability at common law.’’ 49 

U.S.C. Section 30103(e). Pursuant to this 

provision, State common law tort causes 

of action against motor vehicle 

manufacturers that might otherwise be 

preempted by the express preemption 

provision are generally preserved. 

However, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

such State common law tort causes of 

action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even 

if not expressly preempted. This second 

way that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this 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 rule, like many NHTSA rules, 

would prescribe only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend this final rule to 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 will 

not conflict with the minimum standard 

adopted here. Without any conflict, 

there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

Civil Justice Reform 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

295Sandner, V., Ratzek, A., Kolke, R., Kraus, W., 

Lang, M. ‘‘New Programm for the assessment of 

child restraint systems (NPACS)—Development/ 

research/results—First step for future activities?’’ 

Paper Number 09–0298. 

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

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

final rule is discussed above. NHTSA 

notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Under the PRA of 1995, a person is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information by a Federal agency 

unless the collection displays a valid 

OMB control number. There are no 

‘‘collections of information’’ (as defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)) in this final rule. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (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 (ISO) and the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

As explained above in this preamble 

and in the January 28, 2014 NPRM 

preceding this final rule, NHTSA 

reviewed the procedures and 

regulations developed globally to 

dynamically test child restraints in the 

side impact environment. Except for the 

Takata test procedure, the procedures 

and regulations did not replicate all of 

the dynamic elements of a side crash 

that we sought to include in the side 

impact test, or were not sufficiently 

developed for further consideration. 

NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for 

implementation into FMVSS No. 213 

but did not find it acceptable. The test 

does not simulate an intruding door, 

which is an important component in the 

side impact environment. In addition, 

AS/NZS 1754 does not account for a 

longitudinal component, which we also 

believe is an important characteristic of 

a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA’s 

2002 ANPRM, supra, was based on AS/ 

NZS 1754. Commenters to the ANPRM 

believed that a dynamic test should 

account for some degree of vehicle 

intrusion into the occupant 

compartment.) Australia’s CREP test 

also was limited by its lack of an 

intruding door, which is a component 

that is important in the side impact 

environment. 

Test procedures from other countries 

and entities were also too limited. 

Germany’s ADAC test procedure lacks 

an intruding door. While the ISO/TNO 

test procedure accounts for the 

deceleration and intrusion experienced 

by a car in a side impact crash, one of 

its limitations is that the angular 

velocity of the hinged door is difficult 

to control, which results in poor 

repeatability. In addition, these methods 

do not include a longitudinal velocity 

component to the intruding door, which 

is present in most side impacts and 

which NHTSA sought to replicate in the 

FMVSS No. 213a test. NHTSA 

considered the EU’s test procedure but 

decided not to pursue it, since the test 

is of lower severity than the crash 

conditions the agency sought to 

replicate and of lower severity than the 

FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash 

test of a small passenger vehicle. 

Moreover, the test procedure is only 

intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid 

ISOFIX attachments, which are not 

prevalent in the U.S. Further, the sliding 

anchors do not seem to produce a 

representative interaction between the 

door and CRS during a side impact, and 

may introduce variability in the test 

results. 

NPACS completed a test procedure in 

2006. The NPACS final approach is 

comparable to the International 

Standards Organization (ISO) side 

impact efforts which include a rotating 

hinged door to simulate door intrusion 

into the CRS. As discussed in the 

NPRM, the rotating hinged door 

procedures account for the deceleration 

and intrusion experienced by a car in a 

side impact crash but one of its 

limitations is that the angular velocity of 

the hinged door is difficult to control 

resulting in poor repeatability.295 In 

addition, these methods do not include 

a longitudinal velocity component to 

the intruding door, which is present in 

most side impact crashes. The NPACS 

procedure also specifies a sled velocity 

change corridor with a longer duration 

than desired. NHTSA found that for a 

small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 MDB test, 

the change in velocity duration was 

between 40–50 milliseconds, while 

NPACS has a duration of 70–75 

milliseconds. While the agency did not 

evaluate these procedures, the agency 

did not find them compelling enough to 

pursue or change from the selected 

Takata sled-on-sled method, which has 

proven to be repeatable and 

reproducible and can be adapted to be 

done in an acceleration type or a 

deceleration type sled system. 

NHTSA based the side impact test on 

a test procedure that was developed in 

the industry. In so doing, NHTSA saved 

agency resources by making use of 

pertinent technical information that was 

already available. This effort to save 

resources is consistent with the 

NTTAA’s goal of reducing when 

possible the agency’s cost of developing 

its own standards. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, 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 for inflation 

with base year of 1995). Adjusting this 

amount by the implicit gross domestic 

product price deflator for the year 2020 

results in $158 million (113.635/ 

71.868 = 1.581). This final rule does not 

result in a cost of $158 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 of the UMRA. 

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation) 

The policy statement in section 1 of 

E.O. 13609 provides, in part: 

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign 

governments may differ from those taken by 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39309 

U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar 

issues. In some cases, the differences 

between the regulatory approaches of U.S. 

agencies and those of their foreign 

counterparts might not be necessary and 

might impair the ability of American 

businesses to export and compete 

internationally. In meeting shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues, 

international regulatory cooperation can 

identify approaches that are at least as 

protective as those that are or would be 

adopted in the absence of such cooperation. 

International regulatory cooperation can also 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary 

differences in regulatory requirements. 

NHTSA requested public comment on 

the ‘‘regulatory approaches taken by 

foreign governments’’ concerning the 

subject matter of this rulemaking but 

received no comments on this issue. In 

the discussion above on the NTTAA, we 

explained that we reviewed the 

procedures and regulations developed 

globally to test child restraints 

dynamically in the side impact 

environment and found the Takata test 

procedure to be the most suitable for our 

purposes. 

Incorporation by Reference 

Under regulations issued by the Office 

of the Federal Register (1 CFR 51.5(a)), 

an agency, as part of a final rule that 

includes material incorporated by 

reference, must summarize in the 

preamble of the final rule the material 

it incorporates by reference and discuss 

the ways the material is reasonably 

available to interested parties or how 

the agency worked to make materials 

available to interested parties. 

In this final rule, NHTSA incorporates 

by reference material entitled, ‘‘Parts 

List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard 

Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213a—Side 

impact No. NHTSA–213a–2021, CHILD 

SIDE IMPACT SLED,’’ dated December 

2021, that consists of engineering 

drawings and specifications for the side 

impact seat assembly (SISA) that 

NHTSA will use to assess the 

compliance of child restraints with 

Standard No. 213a. The SISA consists of 

a sliding seat, with one seating position, 

and a simulated door assembly. 

NHTSA has placed a copy of the 

material in the docket for this final rule. 

Interested persons can download a copy 

of the material or view the material 

online by accessing 

www.Regulations.gov, telephone 1–877– 

378–5457, or by contacting NHTSA’s 

Chief Counsel’s Office at the phone 

number and address set forth in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION section of this 

document. The material is also available 

for inspection at the Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 

Telephone: 202–366–9826. This final 

rule also incorporates SAE 

Recommended Practice J211/1, revised 

March 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Tests-Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation,’’ This SAE standard is 

already incorporated in 49 CFR 

571.5(l)(4). The SAE J211/1 standard 

provides guidelines and 

recommendations for techniques of 

measurements used in impact tests to 

achieve uniformity in instrumentation 

practice and in reporting results. Signals 

from impact tests have to be filtered 

following the standard’s guidelines to 

eliminate noise from sensor signals. 

Following J211/1 guidelines provides a 

basis for meaningful comparisons of test 

results from different sources. The SAE 

material is available for review at 

NHTSA and is available for purchase 

from SAE International. 

Formatting 

Note: Due to new Federal Register 

formatting guidelines, the ‘‘figure number 

and title’’ labels in the regulatory text now 

appear directly above the corresponding 

figure instead of below the corresponding 

figure. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires; Incorporation by 

reference. 

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 571.5 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b; Adding paragraph (k)(5); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (l)(4); and 

■ d. In addition to the previous 

amendments, remove the text ‘‘http://’’ 

and add in its place the text ‘‘https://’’ 

wherever it appears throughout this 

section. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

must publish a document in the Federal 

Register and the material must be 

available to the public. All approved 

incorporation by reference (IBR) 

material is available for inspection at 

NHTSA and at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact NHTSA at: NHTSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, (202) 366–2588, website: https:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa/electronicreading-room. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. The material may be 

obtained from the sources in the 

following paragraphs of this section. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(5) ‘‘Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA 

Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 

213a—Side impact No. NHTSA–213a2021, CHILD SIDE IMPACT SLED’’ 

dated December 2021; into § 571.213a. 

(l) * * * 

(4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/ 

1, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact TestsVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:45 Jun 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39310 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation’’; 

revised March 1995; into §§ 571.202a; 

571.208; 571.213a; 571.218; 571.403. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.213 is amended by 

adding paragraph S5(g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S5 * * * 

(g) Each add-on child restraint system 

manufactured for use in motor vehicles, 

that is recommended for children in a 

weight range that includes weights up to 

18 kilograms (40 pounds), or for 

children in a height range that includes 

heights up to 1100 millimeters, shall 

meet the requirements in this standard 

and the additional side impact 

protection requirements in Standard No. 

213a (§ 571.213a). Excepted from 

Standard No. 213a are harnesses and car 

beds. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 571.213a is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 571.213a Standard No. 213a; Child 

restraint systems—side impact protection. 

S1. Scope. This standard specifies 

side impact protection requirements for 

child restraint systems recommended 

for children in a weight range that 

includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 

pounds) or by children in a height range 

that includes heights up to 1100 

millimeters (43 inches). 

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this 

standard is to reduce the number of 

children killed or injured in motor 

vehicle side impacts. Each child 

restraint system subject to this standard 

shall also meet all applicable 

requirements in FMVSS No. 213 

(§ 571.213). 

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to add-on child restraint systems 

that are either recommended for use by 

children in a weight range that includes 

weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) 

regardless of height, or by children in a 

height range that includes heights up to 

1100 millimeters regardless of weight, 

except for car beds and harnesses. 

S4. Definitions. 

Add-on child restraint system means 

any portable child restraint system. 

Belt-positioning seat means a child 

restraint system that positions a child 

on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of 

a vehicle Type II belt system on the 

child and that lacks any component, 

such as a belt system or a structural 

element, designed to restrain forward 

movement of the child’s torso in a 

forward impact. 

Car bed means a child restraint 

system designed to restrain or position 

a child in the supine or prone position 

on a continuous flat surface. 

Child restraint anchorage system is 

defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 

(§ 571.225). 

Child restraint system is defined in S4 

of FMVSS No. 213 (§ 571.213). 

Contactable surface means any child 

restraint system surface (other than that 

of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment 

hardware) that may contact any part of 

the head or torso of the appropriate test 

dummy, specified in S7, when a child 

restraint system is tested in accordance 

with S6.1. 

Harness means a combination pelvic 

and upper torso child restraint system 

that consists primarily of flexible 

material, such as straps, webbing or 

similar material, and that does not 

include a rigid seating structure for the 

child. 

Rear-facing child restraint system 

means a child restraint system that 

positions a child to face in the direction 

opposite to the normal (forward) 

direction of travel of the motor vehicle. 

Seat orientation reference line or 

SORL means the horizontal line through 

Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1 to 

§ 571.213a. 

Tether anchorage is defined in S3 of 

FMVSS No. 225 (§ 571.225). 

Tether strap is defined in S3 of 

FMVSS No. 225 (§ 571.225). 

Torso means the portion of the body 

of a seated anthropomorphic test 

dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies 

between the top of the child restraint 

system seating surface and the top of the 

shoulders of the test dummy. 

S5. Requirements. (a) Each child 

restraint system subject to this section 

shall meet the requirements in this 

section when, as specified, tested in 

accordance with S6 and this paragraph. 

Each child restraint system shall meet 

the requirements when oriented in each 

direction recommended by the 

manufacturer (i.e., forward, rearward), 

using any of the seat back angle 

adjustment positions and restraint belt 

routing positions designated for that 

direction, pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS 

No. 213 (§ 571.213), and tested with the 

test dummy specified in S7 of this 

section. 

(b) Each child restraint system subject 

to this section shall also meet all 

applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 

213 (§ 571.213). 

S5.1 Dynamic performance. 

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) With any padding or other flexible 

overlay material removed, exhibit no 

complete separation of any load bearing 

structural element and no partial 

separation exposing either surfaces with 

a radius of less than 6 millimeters or 

surfaces with protrusions greater than 9 

millimeters above the immediate 

adjacent surrounding contactable 

surface of any structural element of the 

child restraint system. 

(b)(1) If adjustable to different 

positions, remain in the same 

adjustment position during the testing 

that it was in immediately before the 

testing, except as otherwise specified in 

paragraph (b)(2). 

(2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), a 

rear-facing child restraint system may 

have a means for repositioning the 

seating surface of the system that allows 

the system’s occupant to move from a 

reclined position to an upright position 

and back to a reclined position during 

testing. 

(ii) No opening that is exposed and is 

larger than 6 millimeters before the 

testing shall become smaller during the 

testing as a result of the movement of 

the seating surface relative to the child 

restraint system as a whole. 

(c) If a front facing child restraint 

system, not allow the angle between the 

system’s back support surfaces for the 

child and the system’s seating surface to 

be less than 45 degrees at the 

completion of the test. 

S5.1.2 Injury criteria. When tested in 

accordance with S6.1 and with the test 

dummy specified in S7, each child 

restraint system that, in accordance with 

S5.5.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), 

is recommended for use by children 

whose mass is more than 13.6 kilograms 

or whose height is more than 870 mm 

shall— 

(a) Limit the resultant acceleration at 

the location of the accelerometer 

mounted in the test dummy head as 

specified in Part 572 such that, for any 

two points in time, t1 and t2, during the 

event which are separated by not more 

than a 15 millisecond time interval and 

where t1 is less than t2, the maximum 

calculated head injury criterion (HIC) 

shall not exceed 570, determined using 

the resultant head acceleration at the 

center of gravity of the dummy head, ar, 

expressed as a multiple of g (the 

acceleration of gravity), calculated using 

the expression: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39311 

(b) The maximum chest compression 

(or deflection) from the output of the 

thoracic InfraRed Telescoping Rod for 

Assessment of Chest Compression (IR– 

TRACC) shall not exceed 23 

millimeters. 

S5.1.3 Occupant containment. 

When tested in accordance with S6.1 

and the requirements specified in this 

section, each child restraint system 

recommended for use by children in a 

specified mass range that includes any 

children having a mass greater than 5 

kilograms but not greater than 13.6 

kilograms (30 lb), shall retain the test 

dummy’s head such that there is no 

direct contact of the head to any part of 

the side impact seat assembly described 

in S6.1.1(a). 

S5.1.4 Protrusion limitation. Any 

portion of a rigid structural component 

within or underlying a contactable 

surface 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 millimeters and no exposed 

edge with a radius of less than 6 

millimeters. 

S5.1.5 Belt buckle release. Any 

buckle in a child restraint system belt 

assembly designed to restrain a child 

using the system shall: 

(a) When tested in accordance with 

the appropriate sections of S6.2, after 

the dynamic test of S6.1, release when 

a force of not more than 71 Newtons is 

applied. 

(b) Not release during the testing 

specified in S6.1. 

S5.1.6 Installation. Each add-on 

child restraint system shall be capable 

of meeting the requirements of this 

standard when installed solely by each 

of the means indicated in the following 

table: 

TABLE 1 TO S5.1.6 

Type of add-on child restraint system 

Means of installation 

Type II seat belt 

assembly 

Type II seat belt 

assembly plus a 

tether if needed 

Lower anchorages of 

the child restraint 

anchorage system 

Lower anchorages of 

the child restraint 

anchorage system 

plus a tether 

if needed 

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

Forward-facing restraints ................................. .................................... X .................................... X 

S6. Test conditions and procedures. 

S6.1 Dynamic side impact test for 

child restraint systems. The test 

conditions and test procedure for the 

dynamic side impact test are specified 

in S6.1.1 and S6.1.2, respectively. 

S6.1.1 Test conditions. 

(a) Test device. (1) The test device is 

a side impact seat assembly (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–213a2021’’ (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 +/¥0.1 

degrees from the perpendicular 

direction of the test platform travel. 

(2) As illustrated in the SISA drawing 

package, attached to the seat belt 

anchorage points provided on the SISA 

is a Type II seat belt assembly. These 

seat belt assemblies are certified to meet 

the requirements of Standard No. 209 

(§ 571.209) and have webbing with a 

width of not more than 2 inches, and are 

attached to the anchorage points 

without the use of retractors or reels of 

any kind. As illustrated in the SISA 

drawing package, attached to the SISA 

is a child restraint anchorage system 

conforming to the specifications of 

Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225). 

(b) Accelerate the test platform to 

achieve a relative velocity of 31.3 ± 0.64 

km/h in the direction perpendicular to 

the SORL between the SISA sliding seat 

and the door assembly at the time they 

come in contact (time = T0). The front 

face of the armrest on the door is 38 ± 

6 millimeters from the edge of the seat 

towards the SORL at time = T0. The test 

platform velocity in the direction 

perpendicular to the SORL during the 

time of interaction of the door with the 

child restraint system is no lower than 

2.5 km/h less than its velocity at time 

= T0. 

(c) The sliding seat acceleration 

perpendicular to the SORL is any pulse 

within the acceleration corridor shown 

in Figure 3 and the change in relative 

velocity perpendicular to the SORL 

between the SISA sliding seat and the 

door assembly is any velocity within the 

relative velocity corridor shown in 

Figure 4. 

(d) Performance tests under S6.1 are 

conducted at any ambient temperature 

from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any 

relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 

percent. 

(e) The child restraint shall meet the 

requirements of S5 when oriented in 

each direction recommended by the 

manufacturer (i.e., forward, rearward), 

using any of the seat back angle 

adjustment positions and restraint belt 

routing positions designated for that 

direction, pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS 

No. 213 (§ 571.213), and tested with the 

test dummy specified in S7 of this 

section. 

S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure. 

(a) The child restraint centerline is 

positioned 300 ± 2 millimeters from the 

SISA sliding seat edge (impact side). 

The child restraint system is attached in 

any of the following manners, at 

NHTSA’s option. 

(1) Install the child restraint system 

using the child restraint anchorage 

system in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions provided 

with the child restraint system pursuant 

to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.017</GPH>
39312 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

except as provided in this paragraph. 

For forward-facing restraints, attach the 

tether strap, if provided, to the tether 

anchorage on the SISA. No 

supplemental device is used to install 

the child restraint system. Tighten belt 

systems of the lower anchorage 

attachments used to attach the restraint 

to the SISA sliding seat to any tension 

of not less than 53.5 Newtons and not 

more than 67 Newtons. Tighten the belt 

of the top tether attachment used to 

attach the restraint to the SISA sliding 

seat to any tension of not less than 45 

Newtons and not more than 53.5 

Newtons. 

(2) For forward-facing and rear-facing 

child restraint systems, install the child 

restraint system using the Type II belt 

system in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions provided 

with the child restraint system pursuant 

to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), 

except as provided in this paragraph. 

For forward-facing restraints, attach the 

top tether strap, if provided, to the top 

tether anchorage on the SISA. For all 

child restraints, no supplemental device 

to install the child restraint system is 

used. Tighten the Type II belt used to 

attach the restraint to the SISA sliding 

seat to any tension of not less than 53.5 

Newtons and not more than 67 

Newtons. Tighten the belt of the top 

tether attachment used to attach the 

forward-facing restraint to the SISA 

sliding seat to any tension of not less 

than 45 Newtons and not more than 

53.5 Newtons. Rear-facing infant 

carriers with a detachable base shall 

only be tested using the base. 

(3) For rear-facing restraints, install 

the child restraint system using only the 

lower anchorages of the child restraint 

anchorage system in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s instructions 

provided with the child restraint system 

pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 

(§ 571.213). No tether strap is used. No 

supplemental device is used to install 

the child restraint system. Tighten belt 

systems used to attach the restraint to 

the SISA-sliding seat to any tension of 

not less than 53.5 Newtons and not 

more than 67 Newtons. Rear-facing 

infant carriers with a detachable base 

shall only be tested using the base. 

(b) Select any dummy specified in S7 

for testing child restraint systems for use 

by children of the heights or weights for 

which the system is recommended in 

accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 

213 (§ 571.213). The dummy is 

assembled, clothed and prepared as 

specified in S8 and part 572 of this 

chapter, as appropriate. 

(c) The dummy is placed and 

positioned in the child restraint system 

as specified in S9. Attach the child 

restraint belts used to restrain the child 

within the system, if appropriate, as 

specified in S9. 

(d) Shoulder and pelvic belts that 

directly restrain the dummy are 

adjusted as follows: Tighten the belt 

system used to restrain the child within 

the child restraint system to any tension 

of not less than 9 Newtons and not more 

than 18 Newtons on the webbing at the 

top of each dummy shoulder and the 

pelvic region. Tighten the belt systems 

used to attach the restraint to the SISA 

sliding seat to any tension of not less 

than 53.5 Newtons and not more than 

67 Newtons. 

(e) Accelerate the test platform in 

accordance with S6.1.1(b). 

(f) All instrumentation and data 

reduction is in conformance with SAE 

J211/1 (1995) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 571.5). 

S6.2 Buckle release test procedure. 

(a) After completion of the testing 

specified in S6.1 and before the buckle 

is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to 

each wrist and ankle of the test dummy 

in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 to 

Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), without 

disturbing the belted dummy and the 

child restraint system. 

(b) Pull the sling that is tied to the 

dummy restrained in the child restraint 

system and apply the following force: 90 

Newtons for a system tested with a 12- 

month-old dummy; 200 Newtons for a 

system tested with a 3-year-old dummy. 

For an add-on child restraint, the force 

is applied in the manner illustrated in 

Figure 4 to Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) 

and by pulling the sling horizontally 

and parallel to the SORL of the SISA. 

(c) While applying the force specified 

in S6.2(b), and using the device shown 

in Figure 8 of Standard No. 213 

(§ 571.213) for pushbutton-release 

buckles, apply the release force in the 

manner and location specified in S6.2.1 

of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), for that 

type of buckle. Measure the force 

required to release the buckle. 

S7 Test dummies. 

S7.1 Dummy selection. At NHTSA’s 

option, any dummy specified in S7.1(a) 

or S7.1(b) may be selected for testing 

child restraint systems for use by 

children of the height or mass for which 

the system is recommended in 

accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 

213 (§ 571.213). A child restraint that 

meets the criteria in two or more of the 

following paragraphs may be tested with 

any of the test dummies specified in 

those paragraphs. 

(a) A child restraint that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 

213 (§ 571.213) for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 5 kilograms but not greater 

than 13.6 kilograms, or by children in a 

specified height range that includes any 

children whose height is greater than 

650 millimeters but not greater than 870 

millimeters, is tested with a CRABI 12- 

month-old test dummy conforming to 49 

CFR part 572 subpart R. 

(b) A child restraint that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 

213 (§ 571.213) for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 13.6 kilograms but not 

greater than 18 kilograms, or by children 

in a specified height range that includes 

any children whose height is greater 

than 870 millimeters but not greater 

than 1100 millimeters, is tested with a 

3-year-old test dummy (Q3s) conforming 

to 49 CFR part 572 subpart W. 

S8 Dummy clothing and 

preparation. 

S8.1 Type of clothing. 

(a) 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 

CFR part 572, subpart R). When used in 

testing under this standard, the dummy 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart R, 

is clothed in a cotton-polyester based 

tight fitting sweat shirt with long sleeves 

and ankle long pants whose combined 

weight is not more than 0.25 kilograms. 

(b) 3-year-old side impact dummy 

(Q3s) (49 CFR part 572, subpart W). 

When used in testing under this 

standard, the dummy specified in 49 

CFR part 572, subpart W, is clothed as 

specified in that subpart, except without 

shoes. 

S8.2 Preparing dummies. When 

using the Q3s dummy, install the IR– 

TRACC on the test impact side 

according to 49 CFR part 572, subpart 

W. Before being used in testing under 

this standard, test dummies must be 

conditioned at any ambient temperature 

from 20.6° to 22.2 °C and at any relative 

humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, 

for at least 4 hours. 

S9 Positioning the dummy and 

attaching the belts used to restrain the 

child within the child restraint system 

and/or to attach the system to the SISA 

sliding seat. 

S9.1 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) 

(49 CFR part 572, subpart R). Position 

the test dummy according to the 

instructions for child positioning that 

the manufacturer provided with the 

child restraint system under S5.6.1 or 

S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), 

while conforming to the following: 

(a) When testing rear-facing child 

restraint systems, place the 12-monthold dummy in the child restraint system 

so that the back of the dummy torso 

contacts the back support surface of the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39313 

system. Attach all appropriate child 

restraint belts used to restrain the child 

within the child restraint system and 

tighten them as specified in S6.1.2 of 

this standard. Attach all appropriate 

belts used to attach the child restraint 

system to the SISA sliding seat and 

tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. 

(b) When testing forward-facing child 

restraint systems, extend the dummy’s 

arms vertically upwards and then rotate 

each arm downward toward the 

dummy’s lower body until the arm 

contacts a surface of the child restraint 

system or the SISA. Ensure that no arm 

is restrained from movement in other 

than the downward direction, by any 

part of the system or the belts used to 

anchor the system to the SISA sliding 

seat. 

(c) When testing forward-facing child 

restraint systems, extend the arms of the 

12-month-old test dummy as far as 

possible in the upward vertical 

direction. Extend the legs of the test 

dummy as far as possible in the forward 

horizontal direction, with the dummy 

feet perpendicular to the centerline of 

the lower legs. Using a flat square 

surface with an area of 2,580 square 

mm, apply a force of 178 Newtons, 

perpendicular to the plane of the back 

of the standard seat assembly, first 

against the dummy crotch and then at 

the dummy thorax in the midsagittal 

plane of the dummy. Attach all 

appropriate child restraint belts used to 

restrain the child within the child 

restraint system and tighten them as 

specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all 

appropriate belts used to attach the 

child restraint system (per S5.1.6) to the 

SISA sliding seat and tighten them as 

specified in S6.1.2. 

(d) After the steps specified in 

paragraph (c), rotate each dummy limb 

downwards in the plane parallel to the 

dummy’s midsagittal plane until the 

limb contacts a surface of the child 

restraint system or the standard seat 

assembly. Position the limbs, if 

necessary, so that limb placement does 

not inhibit torso or head movement in 

tests conducted under S6. 

S9.2 3-year-old side impact dummy 

(Q3s) (49 CFR part 572, subpart W) in 

forward-facing child restraints. Position 

the test dummy according to the 

instructions for child positioning that 

the restraint manufacturer provided 

with the child restraint system in 

accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of 

Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), while 

conforming to the following: 

(a) Holding the test dummy torso 

upright until it contacts the child 

restraint system’s design seating surface, 

place the test dummy in the seated 

position within the child restraint 

system with the midsagittal plane of the 

test dummy head coincident with the 

center of the child restraint system. 

(b) Extend the arms of the test dummy 

as far as possible in the upward vertical 

direction. Extend the legs of the dummy 

as far as possible in the forward 

horizontal direction, with the dummy 

feet perpendicular to the center line of 

the lower legs. 

(c) For a child restraint system with 

a fixed or movable surface, position 

each movable surface in accordance 

with the instructions that the 

manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or 

S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). 

For forward-facing restraints, attach all 

appropriate child restraint belts used to 

restrain the child within the child 

restraint system and tighten them as 

specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all 

appropriate belts or lower anchorage 

attachments used to attach the child 

restraint system to the SISA or to 

restrain the child and tighten them as 

specified in S6.1.2. For belt-positioning 

seats, attach all appropriate vehicle belts 

used to restrain the child within the 

child restraint system and tighten them 

as specified in S6.1.2(d). 

(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. 

S9.3 3-year-old side impact dummy 

(Q3s) (49 CFR part 572, subpart W) in 

rear-facing child restraints. Position the 

test dummy according to the 

instructions for child positioning that 

the restraint manufacturer provided 

with the child restraint system in 

accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of 

Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), while 

conforming to the following: 

(a) Extend the arms of the test dummy 

as far as possible in the upward vertical 

direction. Extend the legs of the dummy 

as far as possible in the forward 

horizontal direction, with the dummy 

feet perpendicular to the center line of 

the lower legs. 

(b) Place the Q3s dummy in the child 

restraint system so that the back of the 

dummy torso contacts the back support 

surface of the system. Place the test 

dummy in the child restraint system 

with the midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy head coincident with the center 

of the child restraint system. Rotate each 

of the dummy’s legs downwards in the 

plane parallel to the dummy’s 

midsagittal plane until the leg or feet of 

the dummy contacts the seat back of the 

SISA or a surface of the child restraint 

system. 

(c) For a child restraint system with 

a fixed or movable surface, position 

each movable surface in accordance 

with the instructions that the 

manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or 

S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). 

Attach all appropriate child restraint 

belts used to restrain a child within the 

child restraint system and tighten them 

as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all 

appropriate belts or lower anchorage 

attachments used to attach the child 

restraint system to the SISA and tighten 

them as specified in S6.1.2. 

(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. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
39314 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.018</GPH> ER30JN22.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39315 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.020</GPH> ER30JN22.021</GPH>
39316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.022</GPH> ER30JN22.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39317 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.5. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13658 Filed 6–29–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2ER30JN22.024</GPH> ER30JN22.025</GPH> ER30JN22.026</GPH>