51720 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1Named in memory of Anton Skeen, a 4-year-old 

who was killed in a car crash in Washington State. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21245] 

RIN 2127–AJ44 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

Section 4(b) and Section 3(b)(2) of 

Anton’s Law, which directed NHTSA to 

initiate rulemaking on child restraint 

system safety, with a specific focus on 

booster seats and restraints for children 

who weigh more than 50 pounds (lb). 

After the enactment of Anton’s Law, this 

agency increased the applicability of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint 

systems, from restraints recommended 

for children up to 50 lb to restraints 

recommended for children up to 65 lb. 

Today’s document proposes a further 

expansion, to restraints recommended 

for children up to 80 lb. It also proposes 

to require booster seats and other 

restraints to meet performance criteria 

when tested with a crash test dummy 

representative of a 10-year-old child. 

Section 4(a) and all other provisions of 

Section 3 were addressed in rulemaking 

documents issued previously by 

NHTSA. 

DATES: You should submit comments 

early enough to ensure that Docket 

Management receives them not later 

than October 31, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

[identified by DOT DMS number in the 

heading of this document] by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

Comments heading under the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://dms.dot.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the information regarding the 

Privacy Act under the Submission 

Comments heading. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

following persons at the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

For non-legal issues: Mr. George 

Mouchahoir of the NHTSA Office of 

Rulemaking at (202) 366–4919. 

For legal issues: Mr. Christopher 

Calamita of the NHTSA Office of Chief 

Counsel at (202) 366–2992 and at (202) 

366–3820 by facsimile. 

You may send mail to both of these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

and Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Anton’s Law 

II. Overview of NHTSA’s Responses to 

Sections 3 and 4 of Anton’s Law 

a. Sections Already Addressed 

b. Sections Not Previously Addressed in 

Rulemaking 

c. Summary of Responses to Public Law 

107–318 

III. Expanded Coverage and Improved 

Evaluation of Booster Seats 

a. Introduction 

b. Proposed Amendments to FMVSS No. 

213 

1. Hybrid III–10C Test Dummy 

2. Extending the Applicability of the 

Standard 

3. Injury Criteria for the Hybrid III–10C 

Test Dummy 

a. Proposed Criteria 

b. Criteria under Development 

c. Chest Deflection and Mass Limit for 

Boosters 

IV. Performance Criteria for Belt Fit 

a. IIHS Study 

b. NHTSA Studies 

V. Benefits and Costs 

VI. Submission of Comments 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Appendix A 

I. Anton’s Law 

On December 4, 2002, President Bush 

signed Public Law 107–318, 116 Stat. 

2772, (‘‘Anton’s Law 1’’), which 

provides for the improvement of the 

safety of child restraints in passenger 

motor vehicles. Section 3 of Anton’s 

Law directed NHTSA to initiate a 

rulemaking for the purpose of 

improving the safety of child restraints, 

and to complete it by June 4, 2005. 

Section 4 directed NHTSA to develop 

and evaluate a test dummy that 

represents a 10-year-old child for use in 

testing child restraints, and to initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding for the adoption 

of the dummy within 1 year following 

that evaluation. 

More specifically, Sections 3 and 4 of 

Anton’s Law provide as follows: 

Section 3. Improvement of Safety of Child 

Restraints in Passenger Motor Vehicles. 

(a) In General. The Secretary of 

Transportation (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Secretary’’) shall initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to establish performance 

requirements for child restraints, including 

booster seats, for the restraint of children 

weighing more than 50 pounds. 

(b) Elements for Consideration. In the 

rulemaking proceeding required by 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) consider whether to include injury 

performance criteria for child restraints, 

including booster seats and other products 

for use in passenger motor vehicles for the 

restraint of children weighing more than 50 

pounds, under the requirements established 

in the rulemaking proceeding; 

(2) consider whether to establish 

performance requirements for seat belt fit 

when used with booster seats and other belt 

guidance devices; 

(3) consider whether to address situations 

where children weighing more than 50 

pounds only have access to seating positions 

with lap belts, such as allowing tethered 

child restraints for such children; and 

(4) review the definition of the term 

‘‘booster seat’’ in Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard No. 213 under section 571.213 of 

title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to 

determine if it is sufficiently comprehensive. 

(c) Completion. The Secretary shall 

complete the rulemaking proceeding required 

by subsection (a) not later than 30 months 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Section 4. Development of 

Anthropomorphic Test Device Simulating a 

10-Year-Old Child. 

(a) Development and Evaluation. Not later 

than 24 months after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 

develop and evaluate an anthropomorphic 

test device that simulates a 10-year-old child 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51721 

2The rule also updated procedures for testing 

child restraints, including incorporating other 

improved test dummies for performance testing and 

updating the bench seat used to test restraints to the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 213. 

3 ‘‘Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten 

Year Old Dummy (HIII–10C),’’ Stammen; Vehicle 

Research and Test Center, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (September 2004). 

for use in testing child restraints used in 

passenger motor vehicles. 

(b) Adoption by Rulemaking. Within 1 year 

following the development and evaluation 

carried out under subsection (a), the 

Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding for the adoption of an 

anthropomorphic test device as developed 

under subsection (a). 

II. Overview of NHTSA’s Responses to 

Sections 3 and 4 of Anton’s Law 

Prior to the enactment of Anton’s 

Law, the agency began several 

rulemaking proceedings on matters that 

were later included in sections 3 and 4 

of the Act. The agency continued work 

on those rulemakings following 

enactment of Anton’s Law and later 

made final decisions in those 

rulemakings, taking into consideration 

the elements specified in the statute. As 

a result of those deliberations, NHTSA 

considered and addressed all but 

section 3(b)(2) of the statute and has 

responded to one of the two elements of 

section 4. The following discussion 

describes the elements of section 3 and 

section 4 of Anton’s Law that have 

already been addressed by NHTSA, and 

the outstanding elements that are now 

addressed in this NPRM. 

a. Sections Already Addressed 

Sections 3(b)(1), 4(a) and 4(b) 

Subsequent to the enactment of 

Anton’s Law, the agency amended 

FMVSS No. 213 to expand the 

applicability of the standard from child 

restraints recommended for use by 

children weighing up to 50 lb to 

restraints recommended for children 

weighing up to 65 lb (30 kilograms) 

(June 2, 2003; 68 FR 37620; Docket No. 

NHTSA–03–15351). The rulemaking 

was part of a planned agency upgrade to 

FMVSS No. 213, and also related to 

provisions in the Transportation Recall 

Enhancement, Accountability and 

Documentation Act (TREAD Act; Pub. L. 

106–414, 114 Stat. 1800) addressing 

child passenger safety.2 The agency 

expressly considered the directive of 

Anton’s Law in that TREAD Act final 

rule, determining that extending the 

scope of the standard to 65 lb accorded 

with section 3(b)(1). (68 FR at 37645.) 

The TREAD Act final rule adopted the 

weighted 6-year-old dummy for use in 

FMVSS No. 213 testing after the agency 

concluded that the dummy was suitable 

for testing the structural integrity of 

child restraints (68 FR at 37647) and 

that use of the dummy would ensure 

that booster seats certified up to 65 lb 

would not fail structurally in a crash. 

The agency codified the weighted 6- 

year-old dummy at 49 CFR part 572, 

Subpart S (69 FR 42595; July 16, 2004). 

In the TREAD Act final rule, the 

agency considered the merits of 

extending the standard to restraints 

recommended for use by children 

weighing up to 80 lb, but decided 

against that action because there was 

not then any test dummy that could 

adequately assess the dynamic 

performance of a child restraint in 

restraining an 80 lb child. Although 

work was underway on the Hybrid III 

10-year-old child test dummy, the 

dummy was not ready in time for 

incorporation into that rulemaking. 

NHTSA believed that expanding the 

standard to restraints for children 

weighing up to 80 lb would not be 

meaningful in the absence of a dummy 

of suitable size and weight that could 

assess the conformance of the restraints 

with the performance requirements of 

the standard. 

In September 2004, the agency 

completed its evaluation of the 

suitability of the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

dummy as a compliance test device, in 

accordance with section 4(a) of Anton’s 

Law.3 NHTSA determined the dummy 

was sufficiently sound to be proposed as 

an FMVSS No. 213 test dummy for 

testing child restraints recommended for 

children who weigh up to 80 lb. 

Accordingly, the agency is issuing 

today’s NPRM to incorporate the 

dummy into FMVSS No. 213 as a test 

instrument. This proposal is part of a 

long-term agency plan on child 

passenger safety (Planning Document, 

65 FR 70687; November 27, 2000; 

Docket NHTSA 7938), and also fulfills 

section 4(b) of Anton’s Law. 

Section 3(b)(3) 

NHTSA began a rulemaking in 1999 

exploring whether to permit child 

restraints to be tethered in certain 

FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests in 

which they must now pass untethered. 

This rulemaking related to whether 

there are child restraints for children 

who only have access to lap belts. After 

considering all available data and 

information and section 3(b)(3) of 

Anton’s Law, the agency decided that an 

amendment was not appropriate and 

withdrew the rulemaking in 2004 (see 

69 FR 16202; March 29, 2004, Docket 

No. 5891). 

A number of restraints are available 

that can accommodate a child weighing 

50 lb (22 kg) or more at a seating 

position equipped with a lap belt only. 

The Britax Wizard and the Britax 

Marathon are convertible child 

restraints with 5-point harnesses that 

are recommended for use in a forwardfacing configuration by children 

weighing up to 65 lb (29.5 kg). The 

Britax Husky is a forward-facing only 

child restraint with a 5-point harness 

that is certified for children weighing up 

to 80 lb (36.3 kg). The Nania Airway LX 

Booster is a forward-facing child 

restraint that can be used with its 5- 

point harness by children weighing up 

to 50 lb (22 kg) with a lap belt. This 

availability illustrates that FMVSS No. 

213 is not a deterrent in the production 

of child restraints for children who only 

have access to lap belts. 

Section 3(b)(4) 

When Anton’s Law was enacted, 

FMVSS No. 213 applied to child 

restraints recommended for children 

who weigh up to 50 lb. As noted above, 

following enactment of Anton’s Law, 

NHTSA expanded the applicability of 

the standard to child restraints 

recommended for children who weigh 

up to 65 lb. An effect of expanding the 

standard’s application was to expand 

also the category of ‘‘booster seats’’

subject to FMVSS No. 213 to boosters 

recommended for children up to 65 lb 

(68 FR 37620, supra). That is, FMVSS 

No. 213 would apply not only to 

boosters recommended for children up 

to 50 lb, but to boosters recommended 

for use up to 65 lb as well. 

The ‘‘booster seat’’ term was made 

more comprehensive in that rulemaking, 

and would be made even more so by 

today’s NPRM. In proposing to expand 

the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to 

restraints recommended for use by 

children weighing up to 80 lb, NHTSA 

believes that the term ‘‘booster seat’’

would be sufficiently comprehensive to 

encompass the overwhelming majority 

of booster seats manufactured for and 

used by children. 

b. Sections Not Previously Addressed in 

Rulemaking 

Section 3(b)(2) 

Prior to the enactment of Anton’s 

Law, NHTSA issued an NPRM exploring 

the issue of whether to require seat belt 

positioning devices to be labeled with a 

warning that the devices should not be 

used with children under the age of 6 

(64 FR 44164; August 13, 1999; Docket 

No. 99–5100). The rulemaking was 

withdrawn in 2004 because there did 

not appear to be sufficient safety need 

for the requirement and because the 

agency planned to conduct up-to-date 

51722 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

4Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia performed a 

cross sectional study of children ages 4 to 7 years 

in crashes of insured vehicles in 15 states. Data was 

collected via telephone and insurance claims 

records for 3616 crashes involving 4243 children. 

5A 5th percentile adult female is approximately 

the size of a 12-year-old. 

6 ‘‘Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit 

and NASS Injury Analysis,’’ Klinich et al., DOT HS 

808 248, November 1994. 

7 Discussion of the slouch factor’s contribution to 

poor belt fit can also be found at 64 FR at 44164, 

44169 (August 13, 1999; Docket No. NHTSA 99–

5100). 

research on current devices (69 FR 

13503; March 23, 2004; Docket No. 

5100). As discussed in today’s NPRM, 

the agency has considered performance 

requirements for seat belt fit for booster 

seats or for belt guidance devices in 

accordance with section 3(b)(2) of 

Anton’s Law and has decided against 

such rulemaking at this time. 

Section 4(b) 

Section 4(b) of Anton’s Law requires 

the initiation of a rulemaking 

proceeding for the adoption of an 

anthropomorphic test device that 

simulates a 10-year-old child for use in 

testing child restraints used in 

passenger motor vehicles. Today’s 

NPRM responds to section 4(b) by 

proposing to adopt the Hybrid III 10- 

year-old dummy into FMVSS No. 213 as 

a test device used to test child restraints 

recommended for children weighing 

over 50 lb. NHTSA is also issuing an 

NPRM proposing to adopt specifications 

and performance requirements for the 

dummy into 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart 

T. 

c. Summary of Responses to Public Law 

107–318 

In summary, NHTSA has considered 

and addressed all but one of the 

elements set forth in section 3 of the 

statute and has responded to section 

4(a). Today’s NPRM addresses the one 

outstanding element of section 3 

(whether there should be belt fit 

performance requirements), and 

responds to section 4(b) by initiating 

rulemaking for the adoption of the 

Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy into 

FMVSS No. 213. It also would further 

expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 

213 to restraints recommended for 

children up to 80 lb. 

III. Expanded Coverage and Improved 

Evaluation of Booster Seats 

a. Introduction 

There has been considerable interest 

over the years in expanding the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to 

increase the likelihood that child 

restraints (booster seats) that are 

recommended for older children will 

perform adequately in a crash. This 

interest goes hand-in-hand with efforts 

to increase booster seat use among 

children who have outgrown their child 

safety seat, but who cannot adequately 

fit a vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt 

system. NHTSA recommends that 

children who have outgrown child 

safety seats should be properly 

restrained in booster seats until they are 

at least 8 years old, unless they are at 

least 4’9 inches tall. The goal of 

expanding the applicability of FMVSS 

No. 213 is to ensure booster seats that 

are recommended for children over the 

current weight limit meet the dynamic 

test requirements of the standard. 

In the TREAD Act final rule, the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 was 

expanded to child restraint systems for 

children who weigh up to 65 lb. The 

agency also specified the use of the 

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

to test restraints at the upper weight 

range. Use of the weighted dummy was 

viewed as an interim measure until the 

Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy was 

available. 

The agency has completed its 

evaluation of the Hybrid III 10-year-old 

test dummy and is satisfied that the 

dummy’s performance merits its 

proposal for use in FMVSS No. 213 

compliance tests. (Hereinafter, the 10- 

year-old dummy is referred to as the 

‘‘HIII–10C dummy.’’) In a separate 

NPRM published on July 13, 2005 (70 

FR 40281; Docket No. NHTSA 2004–

24217), the agency has proposed 

incorporation of the HIII–10C into 49 

CFR part 572, ‘‘Anthropomorphic test 

dummies.’’

Today’s NPRM seeks to enhance child 

passenger safety by way of the proposals 

discussed below. It should be noted, 

however, that data indicate that booster 

seats are generally very effective items 

of equipment. Based on its survey of 

vehicle crashes,4 Children’s Hospital of 

Philadelphia found that the odds of 

injury, adjusting for child, driver, crash, 

and vehicle characteristics, were 59 

percent lower for children between the 

ages of 4 and 7 years in belt positioning 

booster seats than in seat belts alone. 

Children in belt positioning booster 

seats experienced no abdomen, neck/ 

spine/back, or lower extremity injuries, 

while children in seat belts alone 

suffered injuries to all body regions. 

Generally, current booster seat 

designs provide a high level of 

protection. Today’s proposals are 

intended to ensure that all booster seats 

maintain this level of safety. If made 

final, the proposals would ensure that 

booster seats are robustly assessed to 

make sure that they would perform 

soundly in a 30 mile per hour (mph) 

crash when used by children at the 

upper limit of their recommended 

weight range, typically up to 80 lb. 

Booster seats recommended for children 

weighing up to 65 lb are now subject to 

FMVSS No. 213 testing, but they are 

now tested with a 50-lb instrumented 

dummy and with a 62-lb 

uninstrumented dummy. The standard 

does not now evaluate the boosters’

performance with an instrumented test 

dummy weighing between 62 and 80 lb. 

Under today’s NPRM, the ability of the 

boosters recommended for children 

weighing up to 80 lb to meet the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 213 would be assessed with the 77- 

lb Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy. 

This notice addresses three issues. 

First, we propose to test restraints with 

the HIII–10C dummy, i.e., the dummy 

itself and how FMVSS No. 213 would 

be amended to reflect use of the 

dummy. Second, we explore whether 

the mass of belt-positioning boosters 

with seat backs should be limited, i.e., 

whether in a frontal crash, forces 

generated by the mass of the seat back 

could overload the child occupant’s 

chest. Third and last, in Appendix A to 

this NPRM, we discuss the agency’s 

consideration of whether FMVSS No. 

213 should be extended to beltpositioning devices. 

b. Proposed Amendments to FMVSS No. 

213 

1. Hybrid III–10C Test Dummy 

NHTSA has been interested in a test 

dummy between the sizes of a 6-yearold and a 5th percentile adult female for 

several years.5 In early 2000, NHTSA 

asked the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) Dummy Family Task 

Group (DFTG) to develop a test dummy 

representative of a 10-year-old child. 

The agency wanted a dummy with a 

basic construction that would allow the 

dummy to be positioned in erect seated, 

slouched seated, standing, and kneeling 

postures. The ability of the test dummy 

to be positioned in a slouched posture 

was of particular importance because 

children whose legs are too short to 

allow them to bend their knees when 

sitting upright against a vehicle seat 

back will slouch down when seated 

directly on a vehicle seat in order to 

bend their knees over the edge of the 

seat for comfort.6 It was thought that 

slouching could affect the placement of 

the lap belt portion of the seat belt on 

the abdomen 7 and thereby affect realworld performance of the seat belt in a 

vehicle. 

The HIII–10C dummy was envisioned 

as having the same general construction 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51723 

8 ‘‘Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten 

Year Old Dummy (HIII–10C),’’ supra. 9 It is noted that the proposed extension would 

harmonize FMVSS No. 213 with ECE Regulation 44, 

in that both standards would regulate child restraint 

systems recommended for use by children weighing 

up to 36 kg. 

10While provisions providing for using the 

weighted Hybrid III–6C test dummy in testing 

would be eliminated from FMVSS No. 213 under 

the proposal, specification for the test dummy 

would be maintained in Part 572 because of the 

potential for future research and evaluation 

involving the dummy. 

11 In adopting more stringent head excursion 

regulations, boosters were excluded from the more 

stringent head excursion requirements because they 

are not tethered (see, 64 FR 10786; March 5, 1999; 

Docket No. 98–3390). 

as the adult dummies of the Hybrid III 

dummy family, but scaled to the average 

dimensions of a 10-year-old child. The 

most recent growth charts for children 

in the USA, developed by the National 

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) for 

the Center for Disease Control (CDC 

2000) indicate that the average 10-yearold child weighs 79.3 lb (36.05 kg), has 

a standing height of 56 in (1,422 mm) 

and a seated height of 28 in (711 mm). 

The Hybrid III–10C is close to its human 

counterpart with a weight of 77.6 lb, a 

standing height of 51 inches and a 

seated height of 28 inches. The dummy 

was developed with instrumentation 

measuring injury parameters for the 

head, neck, shoulder, thorax, pelvis, 

femur, and tibia. 

The agency began evaluating the first 

production prototype of the HIII–10C 

test dummy in 2002. Extensive 

evaluation of the dummy continued 

through mid-2004. The evaluation has 

demonstrated good biofidelity, 

repeatability, reproducibility, and 

durability. 8 The agency has tentatively 

concluded that the Hybrid III–10C 

would provide an accurate 

representation of a 10-year-old child for 

the testing proposed in this NPRM. The 

agency is concurrently proposing 

incorporation of the Hybrid III–10C test 

dummy 49 CFR part 572, 

Anthropomorphic test devices, by way 

of an NPRM published on July 13, 2005 

(70 FR 40281; Docket No. NHTSA 2004–

24217). 

2. Extending the Applicability of the 

Standard 

Based on the availability of the 

Hybrid III–10C test dummy, the agency 

is now proposing to extend the 

applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to 

include child restraint systems, 

including booster seats, recommended 

for use by children weighing up to 80 

lb (36 kg).9 Under the proposal, all child 

restraint systems, including booster 

seats, recommended for children 

weighing more than 50 lb, would be 

required to meet the specified injury 

criteria when tested with both the 

Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR 

part 572, Subpart N) (HIII–6C) and the 

HIII–10C test dummies. All child 

restraint systems, including booster 

seats, certified for use by children 

weighing between 40 and 50 lb would 

be required to meet the specified injury 

criteria when tested with the HIII–6C 

test dummy. 

For convenience, Table 1 sets forth 

how test dummies are currently used in 

FMVSS No. 213, and the changes being 

proposed by this NPRM. 

TABLE 1.—USE OF DUMMIES

Recommended mass range 

(Kilograms) 

Dummies currently used in 

compliance testing Proposed change 

Not greater than 5 kg (0 to 11 lb) ..................... Newborn ........................................................... Unchanged 

Greater than 5 but not greater than 10 kg (11 

to 22 lb).

Newborn, CRABI .............................................. Unchanged. 

Greater than 10 but not greater than 18 kg (22 

to 40 lb).

CRABI, HIII 3-year-old ..................................... Unchanged. 

Greater than 18 kg but not greater than 22.7 

kg (40 to 50 lb).

HIII 6-year-old ................................................... Unchanged. 

Greater than 22.7 kg (50 to 80 lb) .................... Weighted HIII 6-year-old .................................. HIII 6-year-old, HIII–10C. 

The agency has tentatively decided 

that it would no longer use the weighted 

HIII 6-year-old dummy (which weighs 

62 lb) to test child restraints because 

HIII 6-year-old and the HIII–10C 

dummies appear sufficient to evaluate 

the performance of a child restraint 

recommended for children weighing 

over 50 lb.10 Comments are also 

requested on whether the HIII–10C 

dummy should be used to test any child 

restraint that is recommended for use by 

children weighing over 50 lb. 

The agency proposes to provide 

manufacturers with two years of lead 

time from the date of a final rule. 

Optional early compliance with the 

requirements would be permitted. 

3. Injury Criteria for the Hybrid III–10C 

Test Dummy 

a. Proposed Criteria 

The performance criteria that a child 

restraint must meet when restraining a 

test dummy would generally be 

unchanged, except for the buckle release 

requirements as described below. The 

requirements regarding dynamic 

performance, force distribution, 

installation, child restraint belts and 

buckles and flammability would thus be 

generally uniform for all restraints, 

including those tested with the HIII–10C 

dummy. 

Consistent with current FMVSS No. 

213 requirements, we are proposing to 

adopt the following maximums for the 

injury criteria measurements for the 

Hybrid III–10C: HIC36 = 1000; chest 

acceleration = 60 g’s (3 millisecond 

clip); head excursion = 813 millimeters 

(mm) for untethered condition,11 head 

excursion = 720 mm for tethered 

condition; and knee excursion = 915 

mm. Given the effectiveness of booster 

seats currently in use, the agency 

tentatively concludes the proposed 

injury values would be appropriate to 

ensure the continued effectiveness of 

child restraints recommended for 

children weighing up to 80 lb. While 

injury data for older children in booster 

seats is very limited at this time, the 

agency is not aware of injuries unique 

to children in booster seats that would 

necessitate separate and differing injury 

criteria limits. The agency believes that 

the injury criteria proposed in this 

document would ensure that the 

effectiveness seen across all types of 

child restraint systems would be 

maintained for restraints recommended 

for children weighing up to 80 lb. 

In December 2003, the agency’s 

Vehicle Research and Test Center 

(VRTC) tested eight booster seat models 

with the HIII–10C dummy in sled tests 

replicating the FMVSS No. 213 test 

configuration. Tests were also 

performed on two HIII–10C test 

dummies restrained by a lap/shoulder 

belt only, one was seated upright and 

51724 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

12See ‘‘Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy (HIII–10C) 

Injury Criteria,’’ Stammen; Vehicle Research and 

Test Center, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (September 2004). 

13This value was calculated using the same ratio 

of dummy mass vs. applied tension used when the 

agency adopted the weighted 6-year-old dummy 

into FMVSS No. 213 for use in compliance testing. 

one slouched. There was only one 

failure in the test series, a booster seat 

with a measured HIC (36) value of 1018, 

just marginally above the 1000 limit. 

Chest resultant accelerations and head 

and knee excursions were all well 

within the proposed limits in all tests 

with the FMVSS No. 213 pulse.12 Test 

results are shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—HIII–10C INJURY RESPONSE

Test No. Seat HIC 36 Chest Acc 

(G) 

Head 

(mm) 

Knee 

(mm) 

EFF1 .............................. Cosco Gnd Explorer ............................................................ 679 44.4 353 665 

EFF1 .............................. Evenflo Right Fit .................................................................. 568 43.8 371 687 

EFF2 .............................. Century Next Step ............................................................... 607 46.8 438 710 

EFF2 .............................. Cosco Voyager .................................................................... 1018 50.3 434 750 

EFF3 .............................. Graco Grand Cargo ............................................................. 993 54.6 444 745 

EFF3 .............................. Century Breverra ................................................................. 659 45.7 422 714 

EFF4 .............................. Britax Bodyguard ................................................................. 480 39.5 410 743 

EFF4 .............................. Baby Trend Recaro ............................................................. 356 45.5 513 738 

EFF5 .............................. No Booster ........................................................................... 1105 45.7 445 801 

EFF5 .............................. No Booster ........................................................................... 855 42.2 385 768 

The post-impact buckle force release 

requirement (S5.4.3.5(b)) currently 

differs according to the mass of the test 

dummy or dummies used in testing a 

child restraint, and would continue to 

do so under this proposal. Currently, 

S5.4.3.5(b) requires each child seat belt 

buckle to release when a force of not 

more than 71 N is applied, while 

tension (simulating a child restrained in 

the child seat) is applied to the buckle. 

Tension is applied because a child in 

the seat could impose a load on the belt 

buckle, which increases the difficulty of 

releasing it. (This requirement typically 

does not apply to a booster seat because 

boosters do not generally include a 

buckle as part of its structure.) If a child 

restraint were designed such that it 

would be tested with the HIII–10C 

dummy under this NPRM and had a 

buckle as part of the restraint’s belt 

assembly, a tension of 437 13 Newtons 

would be applied when the buckle is 

tested according to the test procedures 

(S6.2). 

b. Criteria Under Development 

In developing injury criteria, VRTC 

also recognized a need to explore 

development of abdominal injury 

criteria for the HIII–10C. The kinematics 

that result in this type of injury are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘submarining.’’

Submarining is when the pelvis 

becomes unrestrained by the lap belt 

portion of a safety belt assembly and 

then slides under the lap belt in a 

frontal impact. As a result, the belt is 

free to enter the abdominal cavity and 

cause injury to the unprotected internal 

organs and lumbar spine. 

VRTC developed a ratio, the 

abdominal injury ratio (AIR), which 

uses impulse calculations from the iliac 

compressive and lumbar shear forces to 

identify dummy kinematics associated 

with submarining. Preliminary testing 

indicated that the AIR might provide a 

basis for evaluating submarining 

potential. 

At this time the agency is not 

proposing to establish injury criteria 

based on the AIR calculation. The 

agency has limited data with respect to 

the AIR parameter and additional 

testing is needed to evaluate its 

effectiveness in predicting abdominal 

loading in a consistent and accurate 

manner. However, the agency intends to 

continue efforts in developing an 

objective means to measure and 

evaluate abdominal loading, both 

through continued evaluation of the AIR 

parameter as well as alternative 

methods of measurement. 

We note that when knee excursion 

was originally established in FMVSS 

No. 213, we stated that its purpose was 

to prevent manufacturers from 

controlling the amount of head 

excursion by designing restraints that 

permit an occupant to slide downward 

and forward, legs first (44 FR 72133). In 

the context of knee excursion, the 

agency referred to an occupant sliding 

legs first under a lap belt as 

‘‘submarining.’’ However, knee 

excursion is one of two potential major 

consequences of ‘‘submarining.’’

Regarding AIR parameters, 

‘‘submarining’’ can also result in 

movement of the belt from the pelvic 

area into the abdominal cavity. This 

does not necessarily result in excessive 

knee excursion. Discussions of 

‘‘submarining’’ in the remainder of this 

document focus on the factors related to 

the AIR parameters. 

c. Chest Deflection and Mass Limit for 

Boosters 

We are requesting comment on 

eliminating the 4.4 kg mass limit for 

belt-positioning boosters. In place of the 

mass limit, we are considering the 

incorporation of the in-position chest 

deflection requirements from FMVSS 

No. 208 for the Hybrid III–3C, –6C, and 

10C test dummies. The agency believes 

that chest deflection requirements may 

provide an alternative to the use of a 

mass limit for preventing excessive belt 

forces from being loaded on a child 

occupant. 

Background 

Presently, S5.4.3.2, Direct restraint, of 

FMVSS No. 213 requires that: 

Except for a child restraint system whose 

mass is less than 4.4 kg, * * * each Type I 

and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that 

is used to attach the system to the vehicle 

shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, 

impose no loads on the child that result from 

the mass of the system[.] 

In a March 16, 1994 notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the agency 

proposed to prohibit child restraint 

designs that would result in a vehicle’s 

lap belt, or lap portion of a lap/shoulder 

belt belts, imposing any load on a child 

resulting from the mass of the restraint 

system (59 FR 12225; Docket No. 74–09; 

Notice 35). In response, several 

commenters stated that the proposal 

would eliminate high-back belt 

positioning booster seats from the 

market because these restraint systems 

impose a load on a child through the lap 

belt portion of a vehicle’s belt assembly. 

Commenters also stated that there was 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51725 

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

Injury Criteria Development,’’ supra. 

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

Injury Criteria,’’ supra. 

no apparent safety problem with beltpositioning boosters that would justify a 

prohibition. Additionally, they stated 

that there would be no practical way to 

measure the load imposed on a test 

dummy seated in a belt-positioning 

booster. 

In response to these comments, the 

agency excluded child restraints with a 

mass less than 4 kg from the belt loading 

provisions in S5.4.3.2 (60 FR 35126; 

July 6, 1995; Docket No. 74–09, Notice 

42). In that final rule, we explained that 

it was not our intention to prohibit beltpositioning boosters, nor did we believe 

that there was a sufficient safety 

problem to warrant such a prohibition. 

At the time of the March 1995 final rule, 

as currently, there was no test dummy 

available to measure abdominal loading 

reliably. Additionally, there was no 

established method for measuring 

seatback load on a child dummy or an 

associated injury correlation. 

Nonetheless, the agency stated that seat 

back loads could, at some level, injure 

a child occupant in a crash. 

As an alternative to developing a 

method to measure and identify 

excessive loads, the agency established 

the mass limit to prevent future injuries 

resulting from overloading a child 

occupant from a ‘‘massive seat back’’ on 

a child restraint. The 4 kg mass limit 

was based on the agency’s 

understanding of the mass range of beltpositioning boosters then on the U.S. 

market and the absence of indication of 

a safety problem with such restraints, 

and was consistent with requirements in 

Europe. The limit was later increased to 

4.4 kg after a child restraint 

manufacturer petitioned the agency, 

stating that it also marketed a seat with 

a mass of almost 4.4 kg and that the seat 

should have been a part of the 

assessment (61 FR 30824; June 18, 1996; 

Docket No. 74–09, Notice 46). 

Since that time, the agency decided 

that it would not enforce the 

requirements of S5.4.3.2 against beltpositioning seats that have a mass 

greater than 4.4 kg until further notice 

(Letter to John Stipancich; April 11, 

2003; Docket No. NHTSA 2003–15005–

1). 

Recent Developments 

Recent agency research has tentatively 

led us to reconsider the current mass 

limit. In developing the injury criteria 

for the Hybrid III–10C 14, VRTC 

conducted a number of tests to examine 

the impact of belt-positioning booster 

seat mass on child occupants. VRTC 

conducted tests to explore the potential 

for more massive booster seats to cause 

excessive belt forces. The following 

Table 4 provides the data collected. 

TABLE 4.—LAP AND SHOULDER BELT FORCES FOR BOOSTER AND NON-BOOSTER TESTS

Seat Mass 

(kg) 

Mass 

(lb) Weight rating Lap force (N) 

Shoulder 

force 

(N) 

Cosco Grand Explorer ....................................................................... 1.50 3.30 40 –80 lb 4707 5833 

Evenflo Right Fit ................................................................................ 1.42 3.12 40 –80 lb 4238 6446 

Century Next Step ............................................................................. 4.28 9.42 30 –100 lb 2125 5525 

Cosco Voyager .................................................................................. 3.09 6.80 30 –80 lb 2739 6494 

Graco Grand Cargo ........................................................................... 3.44 7.57 30 –80 lb 1454 5987 

Century Breverra ................................................................................ 4.25 9.35 30 –80 lb 1269 5665 

Britax Bodyguard ............................................................................... 5.98 13.16 40 –100 lb 1690 6108 

Baby Trend Recaro ............................................................................ 8.87 19.51 30 –80 lb 2283 6436 

No Booster ......................................................................................... .................... .................... .......................... 2781 5684 

No Booster ......................................................................................... .................... .................... .......................... 1965 5348 

Note: The Cosco Grand Explorer and the 

Evenflo Right Fit have no back. All other 

booster seats in this evaluation are high-back 

belt-positioning booster seats. 

While limited, the VRTC data did not 

demonstrate a correlation between seat 

mass and belt force. Because the VRTC 

tests provide a limited data set, we are 

requesting data on the relationship 

between the mass of belt-positioning 

boosters and belt loads on child 

occupants. 

Although the VRTC data did not 

demonstrate a mass-belt force 

correlation, we are still concerned about 

the potential for excessively heavy highback belt-positioning seats to cause 

loading on a child, crushing the chest 

between the booster seat back and the 

shoulder belt. To explore this concern, 

VRTC also examined the relationship 

between seat mass and the measured 

chest deflection of a child test dummy. 

VRTC ran tests with various booster 

seats installed according to the restraint 

manufacturers’ instructions, except that 

if a booster seat was equipped with a 

tether the tether was not employed. 

TABLE 5.—BOOSTER SEAT MASS

VERSUS CHEST DEFLECTION

Seat Mass 

(kg) 

Chest 

deflection 

(mm) 

Century Next 

Step ............... 4.28 34.1 

Cosco Voyager 3.09 33.7 

Graco Grand 

Cargo ............ 3.44 38.1 

Century 

Breverra ........ 4.25 33.4 

Britax Bodyguard ............. 5.98 28.7 

Baby Trend 

Recaro ........... 8.87 41 

Initial data show that the heaviest 

booster tested in the agency’s limited 

test series resulted in the highest 

measured chest deflection with the 

HIII–10C test dummy. However, the 

second heaviest booster resulted in the 

lowest measured chest deflection. Injury 

assessment reference values (IARVs) for 

the 10-year-old dummy have been 

developed for FMVSS Nos. 208 and 213 

research testing.15 The agency is 

considering proposing a chest deflection 

limit of 44 mm, which is a value that 

falls between the IARV for the 6-yearold out-of-position test requirement and 

the 5th percentile female in-position 

limits. All of the booster seats tested 

measured below the chest deflection 

limit of 44 mm. 

In the TREAD Act final rule, the 

agency declined to adopt chest 

deflection as a measured injury 

parameter in FMVSS No. 213 because of 

the lack of evidence that chest injuries 

are occurring in the real world. Further, 

existing restraints were shown generally 

to have difficulty in meeting the FMVSS 

No. 208 chest deflection requirements. 

The agency stated in the TREAD Act 

51726 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

16 IIHS is a non-profit group focused on motor 

vehicle safety and is funded by the insurance 

industry. 

17See Docket No. NHTSA–2001–10359–10. 18Louden, VRTC NHTSA, November 2003. 

19A backless booster seat may list a maximum 

recommended height, but are only recommended 

for use in a seating position that has a head rest or 

where a child’s ears are below the top of a vehicle’s 

seat back. 

20 ‘‘Improved design for safety belts,’’ Chambers, 

Sullivan and Duffy, June 1993. DOT HS 808–082. 

final rule that we were concerned that 

restraint redesigns for the purposes of 

meeting chest injury criteria could 

compromise other aspects of injury 

protection. 

However, the recent data are causing 

the agency to reconsider chest 

deflection criteria for belt-positioning 

boosters, particularly if there is a 

possibility that these boosters may 

become more massive in the future to 

accommodate larger children. To 

address the potential of booster seat 

mass loading a child through the lap/ 

shoulder belt, we are considering 

establishing chest deflection criteria. We 

request comment on the merits of this 

approach. 

IV. Performance Criteria for Belt Fit 

Section 3(b)(2) of Anton’s Law directs 

the agency to consider establishing 

performance requirements for booster 

seats and other belt guidance devices 

regarding belt fit. Several studies, 

described below, have explored the 

extent to which booster seats differ in 

how they affect the fit of a vehicle’s 

belts on a child. The agency has 

analyzed the belt fit studies and is 

unable to demonstrate that small 

differences in belt fit resulting from 

various booster seats translate into 

associated improvements in the 

dynamic performance of a belt system in 

a crash. Therefore, the agency is not 

proposing performance criteria for 

safety belt fit for booster seats or other 

belt guidance devices, but will continue 

development of tools necessary to 

identify improper belt loading; e.g. 

development of AIR injury criteria. 

a. IIHS Study 

In a small-scale study involving static 

testing, the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety 16 (IIHS) noted that belt 

fit varies depending upon a child’s 

physique and belt-positioning booster 

design.17 IIHS evaluated belt-fit with 

and without booster seats in the rear 

seats of three different vehicles (two 

sedans and a minivan) using a Hybrid 

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

along with three children of varying 

ages, heights and weights: a 4 year old 

child, 39 inches tall, 39 pounds; a 5 year 

4 month old child, 45 inches tall, 42 

pounds; and a 6 year 11 month old 

child, 45 inches tall, 62 pounds. Each 

child was positioned in each vehicle 

while seated in each of six booster seats 

selected by IIHS, and in one trial 

positioned directly on the vehicle seat 

cushion. The test dummy was 

positioned in each vehicle while seated 

in each of 25 booster seats selected by 

IIHS. 

IIHS’s data demonstrated that some 

booster seats improved the belt fit for all 

of the children in the study, some 

booster seats did not improve fit, and 

some worsened belt fit. In determining 

a ‘‘good fit,’’ IIHS relied on NHTSA’s 

guidelines regarding proper fit of a child 

restraint device, i.e., that the lap portion 

of a belt system should rest on the upper 

thighs to minimize instances of 

submarining and abdominal injury. In 

evaluation with the HIII–6C, IIHS 

determined that only a small number of 

the booster seats tested routed the lap 

belt properly. In some instances, the 

booster seat routed the lap portion of the 

belt directly over test dummy’s 

abdomen. 

The IIHS report expressed concern 

that poor belt fit may not be identified 

through dynamic testing of child 

restraint systems because dynamic 

testing may not replicate some critical 

occupant kinematics and injury patterns 

of real children. IIHS cited the inability 

of current test dummies to assess 

abdominal injury risk from improperly 

positioned lap belts. IIHS concluded 

that even if a new test dummy were to 

include instrumentation to measure 

abdominal loads, it is unlikely that a 

test dummy would submarine in a 

dynamic test because a dummy 

typically has a rigid spine and molded 

hips. 

b. NHTSA Studies 

In response to Anton’s Law, the 

agency conducted two studies to 

examine the static belt fit of a vehicle’s 

safety belt given various seating 

positions, dummies, and restraint types. 

The reports can be found in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

1. ‘‘Static Evaluation of Belt Fit for 

Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and 5th 

Female Dummies in Rear Outboard 

Seating Positions’’18

i. Survey Approach. The first study 

examined belt fit in 20 passenger 

vehicles, ranging from model year (MY) 

1999 to 2004, for lap and shoulder belts 

in the outboard rear position. To 

achieve a representative sample of the 

vehicle fleet, the survey fleet was 

comprised of three compact cars, three 

mid-size cars, five large size cars, five 

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and four 

minivans. Some of these vehicles had 

adjustable shoulder belts. 

The vehicle seats were evaluated with 

a combination of the Hybrid III 5th 

percentile adult female, the HIII–6C and 

the HIII–10C test dummies, with each 

dummy seated directly on the seat 

cushion and properly buckled. The 

female test dummy was tested in all of 

the vehicles, while the child test 

dummies were tested at an outboard 

seating position in 12 of the 20 test 

vehicles. 

In addition to determining belt fit 

with the dummies seated directly on a 

vehicle seat, we also used a small 

number of belt positioning boosters with 

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

The test employed three booster seats: a 

high back booster without a lap belt 

guide, a high back booster with a lap 

belt guide, and a backless booster seat.19

The HIII–6C test dummy was tested in 

all of the booster seats, while the HIII–

10C test dummy was tested only in the 

backless booster seat. 

The seating procedure used for each 

dummy was the same. The dummies 

were placed in the center of the seating 

position with their backs touching the 

seat back. The legs were bent over the 

front edge of the seat, if possible. 

Otherwise, the legs were positioned 

straight out in front of the dummy. The 

belt was then placed over the test 

dummy’s torso and buckled. The 

shoulder belt was pulled out two to 

three times and allowed to fall naturally 

onto the torso. When a booster seat was 

used, it was positioned in the center of 

the seating position, the dummy was 

placed in the booster seat, and the 

vehicle belt was routed per the child 

restraint manufacturer’s instructions. 

Based on a 1992–1993 survey, VRTC 

determined proper belt fit on the 

dummy as the shoulder belt’s fitting 

between the neck and shoulder at an 

angle of approximately 55–56 degrees 

from the centerline of the test dummy, 

and the lap belt’s fitting over the pelvic 

area and upper thigh.20 Each dummy 

was marked with tape showing where 

the belts should be properly positioned 

on each dummy. A good belt fit was 

determined by comparing the position 

of a vehicle’s belt to the tape markings. 

Both seating position and belt fit were 

judged to be good when (1) A dummy’s 

back was against the seatback, (2) its 

legs were bent at the knee joint over the 

front edge of the seat without slouching, 

(3) the shoulder belt remained across 

the torso without getting onto the neck 

or out onto the shoulder, and (4) the lap 

belt was on the pelvic bone or top of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51727 

21 ‘‘Static Evaluation of Belt Fit for Hybrid III 6- 

Year-Old and 10-Year-Old,’’ Louden, VRTC 

NHTSA, August 2003. 

thighs. The quality of belt fit was then 

quantitatively rated based on the 

difference between the location of the 

belt compared to the location of the tape 

markings on the test dummy at three 

critical points: The shoulder belt at the 

neckline, the shoulder belt at the torso, 

and the lap belt at the center of the 

pelvis. These three numbers were then 

averaged to produce a rating of poor, 

fair, or good. 

ii. Results: The results of the survey 

demonstrated that generally, booster 

seats improved the rating for the child 

dummies. Adjustable upper anchorages 

in the rear seat also generally improved 

shoulder belt fit for all occupant sizes, 

particularly when used in conjunction 

with a booster seat. In virtually all of the 

vehicles surveyed, belt fit for the HIII–

6C and HIII–10C test dummies in the 

outboard seating position improved 

when belt-positioning devices were 

used. 

For the HIII–10C test dummy, use of 

a seat belt alone resulted in at least a fair 

rating 66 percent of the time. Use of the 

backless booster seat improved the seat 

belt fit from ‘‘fair’’ to ‘‘good’’ by 62 

percent for the HIII–10C test dummy. 

For both child test dummies, the booster 

seats had the potential to reduce the 

incidence of slouching by permitting the 

dummy’s legs to bend at the knees for 

comfort, which is not possible when 

seated directly on the vehicle seat in the 

belt only. 

While use of booster seats generally 

improved the rating for the child test 

dummies, not all booster seats equally 

affected belt fit on the two child test 

dummies. Overall, the HIII–6C fit best in 

both a backless booster seat and a high 

back booster seat. However, in one 

vehicle, the use of the backless booster 

seat actually decreased the rating for the 

HIII–10C when compared to the belt 

only. In that test, the backless booster 

seat raised the test dummy up too high 

for a proper belt fit given the anchorage 

placement in that vehicle, resulting in a 

‘‘poor’’ rating. This was because the 

placement of the shoulder belt was 

somewhat suspended in the rear 

window. 

2. ‘‘Static Evaluation of Belt Fit for 

Hybrid III 6- and 10-Year-Olds’’ 21

i. Survey approach. The second study 

evaluated belt fit with and without 

booster seats and with aftermarket belt 

positioning devices in the center rear 

seating position for two different sized 

child dummies. 

The procedure for this study was 

similar to that in the first study. VRTC 

evaluated the belt fit with three booster 

seats: a high back booster without lap 

belt guide, a high back booster with lap 

guide, and a backless booster seat. Also 

evaluated were three aftermarket belt 

positioning devices. Each belt 

positioning device was recommended 

by its manufacturer for occupants 

weighing more than 50 lb. Each 

manufacturer recommended that 

children under 50 lb be restrained in a 

convertible or booster seat. To provide 

for a vehicle sample population 

representative of the vehicle fleet, the 

surveyed vehicles ranged from MY 1999 

to 2004 and consisted of three compact 

cars, three mid-sized cars, three large 

size cars, five SUVs, and three 

minivans. Each vehicle was equipped 

with a lap and shoulder belt in the 

center rear position. The study used the 

Hybrid III–6C and -10C test dummies. 

Dummy seating procedures and 

determination of belt fit were the same 

as in the first VRTC study. 

ii. Results: The second survey also 

demonstrated that booster seats 

generally improved the belt fit rating for 

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

year-old test dummies. As in the first 

survey, belt fit for the 6-year-old test 

dummy was generally poor when 

restrained only with a vehicle’s belt 

assembly. In approximately 76 percent 

of the vehicles tested, when the Hybrid 

III–6C was restrained using only the 

vehicle belt system, the shoulder belt 

interacted with the neck and/or the lap 

belt was above the pelvic area. In all of 

the vehicles used in this study, the 

Hybrid III–6C test dummy’s legs could 

not bend at the seat edge. 

Belt fit for the HIII–10C was also 

generally poor when restrained with the 

vehicle’s belts only. Approximately 53 

percent of the positions evaluated 

resulted in a ‘‘poor’’ rating for the HIII–

10C test dummy and the dummy’s legs 

could only be bent over the vehicle’s 

seat edge in 40 percent of the positions. 

With the HIII–6C test dummy, use of 

a booster seat resulted in approximately 

82 percent of the positions being 

evaluated as having a ‘‘fair’’ to ‘‘good’’

fit. However, as in the first survey, the 

improvement was not uniform among 

the three booster seat models. The high 

back booster with lap belt guide resulted 

in 76 percent of the positions evaluated 

with the HIII–6C dummy being rated 

‘‘good,’’ the high back booster without a 

lap belt guide resulted in approximately 

71 percent of the positions tested with 

the HIII–6C being rated ‘‘fair’’ to ‘‘good,’’

and the backless booster seat resulted in 

76 percent of the positions evaluated 

being rated ‘‘fair’’ to ‘‘good.’’

In some vehicles, positioning the 

HIII–6C dummy in a booster seat 

resulted in problems. In one instance, 

use of the backless booster seat caused 

the shoulder belt to come across the 

neck of the dummy, resulting in a 

‘‘poor’’ fit. The high back booster seat 

without guides had a head restraint that, 

in some vehicles, interacted with the 

shoulder belt, resulting in a ‘‘poor’’

rating. 

For the HIII–10C test dummy, the use 

of a booster seat improved the belt fit 

from ‘‘poor’’ to ‘‘good’’ by 90 percent. 

Overall, the belt positioning devices 

improved belt fit. However, it is not 

known how these devices would affect 

belt performance when tested 

dynamically. Additionally, there were 

several issues of concern with the 

devices. Some of the devices wrap the 

vehicle’s shoulder belt around them, 

which can add up to several inches of 

slack to the belt if the device were to fail 

in a crash. Use of a device that was 

equipped with a hard metal clip with a 

plastic coating often resulted in the 

belt’s becoming twisted near the 

retractor, the clip being positioned close 

to the center of the dummy (on an area 

of soft tissue), and the lap belt 

frequently being raised off of the pelvis. 

c. Discussion of Static Belt Fit Studies 

The static belt fit surveys generally 

demonstrated that booster seats improve 

belt fit, but they also demonstrated 

variation in fit that was attributable to 

the interaction between restraints and 

vehicle designs. Both studies 

demonstrated that some vehicle-booster 

seat combinations were not as good as 

others. Some boosters made the belts fit 

the child dummy better in some 

vehicles than in others. 

While these surveys identified 

potential for variation, it is unknown 

whether the small variations in belt fit 

between the restraint configurations 

evaluated in the studies would translate 

into variations in safety benefits in an 

actual vehicle crash. The point at which 

belt fit degrades the performance of the 

belts from the point of ‘‘acceptable’’ to 

‘‘unacceptable’’ has not been 

determined. Although NHTSA believes 

that belts are better positioned over 

bony structure of the body than over soft 

tissue, how much variation from the 

optimal placement of the belt should be 

permitted by a performance standard for 

the fit to be considered ‘‘passing’’ is 

unknown. 

Nor does the agency believe there is 

a need to make that known. The agency 

believes that the dynamic performance 

requirements for child restraint systems, 

including booster seats, provide for a 

better evaluation of injury potential than 

51728 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

22 Docket NHTSA–04–18682. 

23There are no child restraints that are made only 

for children weighing between 65 and 80 lb that 

arguable would be newly subject to FMVSS No. 

213. 

24Optical character recognition (OCR) is the 

process of converting an image of text, such as a 

scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into 

computer-editable text. 

a static belt fit test. The standardized 

test seat assembly specified in FMVSS 

No. 213 has been developed to be 

representative of existing vehicle seat 

geometries; e.g., seat back and cushion 

angles, safety belt anchorage location, 

and spacing, and cushion force/ 

deflection characteristics. All child 

restraint systems must meet the injury 

performance criteria in a 30 mph 

simulated frontal crash on the test seat 

assembly. The seat assembly was 

updated in the TREAD Act rulemaking, 

supra, and will be used to test child 

restraints manufactured on or after 

August 1, 2005. We believe that as child 

restraint manufacturers optimize their 

restraint designs to meet the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 213 using the updated configuration 

of the standard test seat assembly, the fit 

of child restraints in real-world vehicles 

may improve. While NHTSA believes 

that ‘‘proper’’ belt fit, especially 

shoulder belt fit, is largely dependent on 

vehicle design characteristics, the 

agency also believes that this 

optimization of child restraint design to 

current vehicle seat designs may 

translate into improved belt fit for 

children in booster seats. In any event, 

NHTSA believes that FMVSS No. 213’s 

dynamic testing requirements provide a 

true and thorough evaluation of the 

performance of the restraints. 

Accordingly, a static belt fit 

performance requirement would not 

provide an additional safety benefit 

commensurate with the burdens of such 

a rulemaking. 

It should be noted that, as part of the 

agency’s work in response to the TREAD 

Act, we evaluated child restraint 

performance in vehicles tested to the 

frontal crash program of the New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP 

placed child restraint systems in the 

rear seat of vehicles that undergo frontal 

barrier crash tests at 35 mph. Data 

generated to date by testing with the 

HIII–3C dummy placed in a forwardfacing child restraint indicate that the 

performance of a child restraint is 

largely dependent on the vehicle crash 

parameters, such as the vehicle crash 

pulse, and less dependent on 

differences in design between various 

restraints.22 Accordingly, for the reasons 

stated above, the agency has decided 

that establishing performance 

requirements for seat belt fit is not 

warranted. 

V. Benefits and Costs 

The agency cannot quantify the 

benefits of this rulemaking. However, 

the agency believes benefits will accrue 

by assuring child restraints can meet the 

FMVSS No. 213 requirements over the 

range of sizes of children for which they 

are recommended. Currently, booster 

seats are required to use only a dummy 

representative of a 3-year-old child at 

the lower end of the weight range and 

the weighted 6-year-old dummy at the 

upper weight limit per configuration. 

The weighted 6-year-old dummy is 

limited in representing heavier children 

that the booster seats are labeled to 

accommodate. Inclusion of a test 

dummy representative of a 10-year-old 

child would facilitate the testing of 

booster seats and other child restraints 

by causing each restraint to be tested 

with a test dummy better representative 

of children at the upper limit of a 

specified weight range. 

If adopted, this proposed rule would 

generally not increase the testing that 

NHTSA conducts of child restraints.23

Currently, restraints recommended for 

children weighing up to 65 lb are tested 

with a weighted 6-year-old test dummy. 

The NPRM proposes to replace the 

weighted 6-year-old dummy with the 

HIII–10C, rather than add a test with the 

HIII–10C. Thus, the certification 

responsibilities of manufacturers would 

not generally be affected. The 2004 price 

of an uninstrumented 10-year-old 

dummy is about $36,550. The specified 

instrumentation costs approximately 

$59,297. 

Additionally, we do not believe that 

the proposed requirements would 

require extensive redesign of existing 

booster seat designs. We tentatively 

determined that any redesign required 

would be of minimal cost. For further 

discussion of the benefits and costs, 

please refer to the preliminary 

regulatory evaluation placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

VI. Submission Of Comments 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are filed correctly in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21) 

NHTSA established this limit to 

encourage you to write your primary 

comments in a concise fashion. 

However, you may attach necessary 

additional documents to your 

comments. There is no limit on the 

length of the attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. You may 

also submit your comments to the 

docket electronically by logging onto the 

Docket Management System (DMS) Web 

site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to 

obtain instructions for filing your 

comments electronically. Please note, if 

you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we 

ask that the documents submitted be 

scanned using Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing the agency to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions.24

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments 

Were Received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business 

Information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in NHTSA’s confidential 

business information regulation (49 CFR 

part 512). 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

that Docket Management receives before 

the close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, the 

agency will also consider comments that 

Docket Management receives after that 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51729 

date. If Docket Management receives a 

comment too late for the agency to 

consider it in developing a final rule 

(assuming that one is issued), the 

agency will consider that comment as 

an informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments 

Submitted by Other People? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. 

You may also see the comments on 

the Internet. To read the comments on 

the Internet, take the following steps: 

1. Go to the Docket Management 

System (DMS) Web page of the 

Department of Transportation (http:// 

dms.dot.gov). 

2. On that page, click on ‘‘simple 

search.’’

3. On the next page (http:// 

dms.dot.gov/search/ 

searchFormSimple.cfm) type in the 

four-digit docket number shown at the 

beginning of this document. Example: If 

the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

1998–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’

After typing the docket number, click on 

‘‘search.’’

4. On the next page, which contains 

docket summary information for the 

docket you selected, click on the desired 

comments. You may download the 

comments. Although the comments are 

imaged documents, instead of word 

processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’

versions of the documents are word 

searchable. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, NHTSA will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the Docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, the agency 

recommends that you periodically 

check the Docket for new material. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

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

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Vehicle Safety Act 

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor 

Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 

the Secretary of Transportation is 

responsible for prescribing motor 

vehicle safety standards that are 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and are stated in 

objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). As 

defined by statute, motor vehicle safety 

standards are to provide minimum 

standards for motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment performance. 49 

U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). When prescribing 

such standards, the Secretary must 

consider all relevant, available motor 

vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C. 

30111(b). The Secretary must also 

consider whether a proposed standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the type of motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed and the extent to which the 

standard will further the statutory 

purpose of reducing traffic accidents 

and associated deaths. Id. Responsibility 

for promulgation of Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards was 

subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 

U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

The agency carefully considered these 

statutory requirements in proposing 

these amendments to FMVSS No. 213. 

We believe that the proposed 

amendments to FMVSS No. 213 would 

be practicable. The proposed 

performance requirements are based on 

existing requirements. Additionally, 

agency testing has demonstrated that 

child restraint systems currently on the 

market would be able to comply with 

the proposed requirements. 

We believe that this proposed rule is 

appropriate for child restraints 

recommended for use by children 

weighing up to 80 lb. The establishment 

of performance criteria for these 

restraint systems would help ensure that 

they provide optimized safety benefits 

for their intended occupants, children 

weighing up to 80 lb. Accordingly, the 

NPRM would meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety. 

Further, the agency has tentatively 

determined that the HIII–10C test 

dummy provides an objective tool for 

determining compliance of a child 

restraint with the proposed 

requirements. Agency evaluation has 

demonstrated the HIII–10C test dummy 

provides results that are valid, 

repeatable and reliable. 

Further, as stated above, we are 

proposing to establish performance 

criteria for child restraint systems 

intended for children weighing up to 80 

lb. If made final, the proposed 

rulemaking would extend current 

performance requirements to these child 

restraint systems intended for heavier 

children. 

With regard to Anton’s Law, we have 

discussed those statutory requirements 

above. As directed by Anton’s Law, the 

agency has initiated and completed 

rulemaking that (1) considered whether 

to include injury performance criteria 

for child restraints, including booster 

seats and other products for use in 

passenger motor vehicles for the 

restraint of children weighing more than 

50 pounds (see 68 FR 37620, supra), (2) 

considered whether to address 

situations where children weighing 

more than 50 pounds only have access 

to seating positions with lap belts, such 

as allowing tethered child restraints for 

such children (see 69 FR 16202, supra), 

and (3) reviewed the definition of the 

term ‘‘booster seat’’ in the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards to determine if 

it is sufficiently comprehensive (see 68 

FR 37620, supra). 

The outstanding element in section 3 

of Anton’s Law directing the agency to 

consider whether to establish 

performance requirements for seat belt 

fit when used with booster seats and 

other belt guidance devices is addressed 

in this notice. The agency has 

considered performance requirements 

for seat belt fit for booster seats or for 

belt guidance devices in accordance 

with § 3(b)(2) of Anton’s Law and has 

decided against such rulemaking at this 

time. Currently, field data does not 

indicate a need for performance 

requirements for seat belt fit for booster 

seats or for belt guidance devices. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

51730 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866 and the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) regulatory 

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979). The Office of 

Management and Budget did not review 

this rulemaking document under 

Executive Order 12866. 

We cannot quantify the benefits of 

this rulemaking. However, the agency 

believes this rulemaking would improve 

the safety of child restraint systems by 

providing for their more thorough 

compliance testing. The result of this 

rule would be to provide better 

assurance that each child restraint safely 

restrains the children for whom the 

restraint is recommended. 

The costs associated with the 

proposed rulemaking are largely 

attributable to the expense of an 

instrumented HIII–10YO. The 2004 

price of an uninstrumented 10-year-old 

dummy is about $36,550. The specified 

instrumentation costs approximately 

$59,297. This NPRM does not require 

manufacturers to use the test dummy in 

certifying their child restraints. Rather, 

this NPRM proposes changes to how 

NHTSA would conduct compliance 

testing under FMVSS No. 213. A 

complete discussion of the costs is 

provided in the preliminary regulatory 

evaluation that has been included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

C. 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 rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). The Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121 define a small business, in part, 

as a business entity ‘‘which operates 

primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. NHTSA 

estimates there to be 13 manufacturers 

of child restraints, four or five of which 

could be small businesses. 

If adopted, this proposed rule would 

generally not increase the testing that 

NHTSA conducts of child restraints. 

The proposal would replace testing 

performed on restraints recommend for 

children weighing up to 65 lb with a 

weighted 6-year-old test dummy with 

testing using the HIII–10C. Thus, the 

certification responsibilities of 

manufacturers would not generally be 

affected. I certify that this NPRM would 

not impose a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, because these businesses 

currently must certify their products to 

the dynamic test of Standard No. 213. 

They typically provide the basis for 

those certifications by dynamically 

testing their products using child test 

dummies. The effect of this NPRM on 

most child restraints would be to subject 

them to testing with a new dummy in 

place of an existing one. Testing child 

restraints on an updated seat assembly 

is not expected to affect the performance 

of the restraints significantly. 

D. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed 

rule for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that it would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

NHTSA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation. 

NHTSA also may not issue a regulation 

with Federalism implications and that 

preempts State law unless the agency 

consults with State and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132. The agency has determined that 

this proposal would not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation and the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

F. Civil Justice Reform 

This NPRM would not have any 

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 

30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

State may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the state requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending, or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid control 

number from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule 

would not establish any requirements 

that are considered to be information 

collection requirements as defined by 

the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

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

directs NHTSA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51731 

25 ‘‘Evaluation of Devices to Improve Shoulder 

Belt Fit,’’ DOT HS 808 383, Sullivan and Chambers, 

August 1994. 

26See ‘‘Performance and Use of Child Restraint 

Systems, Seatbelts, and Air Bags for Children in 

Passenger Vehicles, Volume 1,’’ National 

Transportation Safety Board (1996). (http:// 

www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/SS9601.pdf). 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The agency searched for, but did not 

find, any voluntary consensus standards 

applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, Federal requires 

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 2000 

increases it to $109 million.) This 

NPRM would not result in a cost of $109 

million or more to either State, local, or 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 of the UMRA. 

J. 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. 

VIII. Appendix A—Extending FMVSS 

No. 213 to Belt-Positioning Devices 

Over the years, the agency has 

considered whether to extend FMVSS 

No. 213 to belt-positioning devices. Belt 

positioning devices alter the position of 

a vehicle lap and shoulder belt and in 

some cases are marketed for the purpose 

of improving belt fit on children seated 

directly on a vehicle seat without the 

use of a child restraint system. 

The agency first addressed this issue 

in the context of responding to a 

petition for rulemaking from the 

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). 

In 1996, the AAP requested that the 

agency regulate aftermarket belt 

positioning devices under FMVSS No. 

213. The AAP stated that because such 

devices are generally marketed as child 

occupant protection devices, the 

products should be subject to the same 

testing and certification to which child 

restraints are subject. The AAP was 

concerned that some belt positioning 

devices ‘‘appear to interfere with proper 

lap and shoulder harness fit by 

positioning the lap belt too high across 

the abdomen, the shoulder harness too 

low across the shoulder, and by 

allowing too much slack in the shoulder 

harness.’’

On August 13, 1999, the agency 

granted the petition and published an 

NPRM that proposed to regulate belt 

positioning devices by way of a 

consumer information regulation (64 FR 

44164). The NPRM proposed to require 

labeling of belt positioning devices with 

a statement warning against use of the 

device by children under the age of 6 

(alternative, or additionally, under the 

height of 47.5 inches (1206 mm)). 

In 1994, the agency released a report 

regarding tests that the agency had 

conducted on three belt positioning 

devices that were then on the market.25

The agency dynamically tested the belt 

positioning devices under the 

conditions then specified for testing 

child restraints under FMVSS No. 213. 

Hybrid II 3-year-old and 6-year-old 

dummies were used (which, in 1994, 

were the state-of-the-art dummies used 

to test child restraints), and a Hybrid III 

5th percentile female adult dummy. 

Dummies were restrained in lap/ 

shoulder belts with, and without the 

devices. A comparison of the test results 

revealed that in many of the tests with 

the 3-year-old dummy, the belt 

positioning devices reduced belt 

performance and contributed toward 

high HIC measurements (HIC values 

greater than 1000). In one case, the 

measured chest acceleration exceeded 

the FMVSS No. 213 limit of 60 g’s. The 

devices generally performed adequately 

with the 6-year-old dummy with respect 

to HIC, i.e., the performance criteria of 

FMVSS No. 213 were not exceeded. 

However, one device resulted in chest g 

measurements that exceeded the 

FMVSS No. 213 limit in both frontal 

and offset sled tests. 

Notwithstanding the results of the 

study, there was no evidence of a realworld problem. Only one case has been 

identified in which a child using a belt 

positioning device suffered injuries 

from the lap/shoulder belt.26

Additionally, we were concerned that 

the proposed label might encourage 

parents to rely on a belt positioning 

device as opposed to a booster seat. 

Required labels could lead parents to 

believe that belt positioning devices are 

certified to the same performance 

criteria as child restraint systems. 

In the absence of real-world data and 

given the concerns of improper restraint 

choice, we terminated the rulemaking 

regarding belt positioning devices (69 

FR 13503; March 23, 2004; Docket No. 

NHTSA–99–5100). However, while we 

are not pursuing rulemaking, we have 

initiated a testing program to allow us 

to use the most advanced test 

procedures and equipment to gain upto-date research on current belt 

positioning devices. We are particularly 

interested in the potential use of the 

HIII–10C test dummy in evaluating 

forces that such devices could redirect 

to a child’s abdominal and lumbar areas 

in a crash. The anterior superior iliac 

spine load cell attachment locations on 

the test dummy provide an opportunity 

to evaluate belt loading of the abdomen. 

Further, because the HIII–10C can be 

positioned in a slouched or upright 

posture, the dummy can be used to 

assess performance of the belts and belt 

positioning devices with slouching 

children. We believe that the research 

program will provide useful data that 

will enhance our ability to determine 

what regulatory approach, if any, would 

be most appropriate to address belt 

positioning devices. 

For these reasons, the agency has 

decided not to regulate belt positioning 

devices under FMVSS No. 213 in this 

NPRM. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 

571 as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for Part 571 

would continue to read as follows: 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.213 would be amended 

by revising the definition of Child 

restraint system in S4, and revising 

S6.1.1(d)(2), S6.2.3, S7.1.2(e), S9.1(f), 

S9.3.2 introductory text, and S10.2.2 

and adding S7.1.2(f), to read as follows: 

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint 

systems. 

* * * * * 

S4. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Child restraint system means any 

device, except Type I or Type II seat 

belts, designed for use in a motor 

51732 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or 

position children who weigh 36 

kilograms (kg) or less. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.1 Test conditions. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(2) When using the test dummies 

specified in 49 CFR part 572, subparts 

N, P, R, or T, performance tests under 

S6.1 are conducted at any ambient 

temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and 

at any relative humidity from 10 percent 

to 70 percent. 

* * * * * 

S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the 

dummy restrained in the child restraint 

system and apply the following force: 50 

N for a system tested with a newborn 

dummy; 90 N for a system tested with 

a 9-month-old dummy; 90 N for a 

system tested with a 12-month-old 

dummy; 200 N for a system tested with 

a 3-year-old dummy; 270 N for a system 

tested with a 6-year-old dummy; 350 N 

for a system tested with a weighted 6- 

year-old dummy; or 437 N for a system 

tested with a 10-year-old-dummy. The 

force is applied in the manner 

illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows: 

(a) Add-on Child Restraints. For an 

add-on child restraint other than a car 

bed, apply the specified force by pulling 

the sling horizontally and parallel to the 

SORL of the standard seat assembly. For 

a car bed, apply the force by pulling the 

sling vertically. 

(b) Built-in Child Restraints. For a 

built-in child restraint other than a car 

bed, apply the force by pulling the sling 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the specific vehicle shell or the specific 

vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply 

the force by pulling the sling vertically. 

S7.1.2 * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) A child restraint that is 

manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 

and before (two years after publication 

of a final rule; for illustration purposes, 

August 1, 2007), and that is 

recommended by its manufacturer in 

accordance with S5.5 for use either by 

children in a specified mass range that 

includes any children having a mass 

greater than 22.7 kg or by children in a 

specified height range that includes any 

children whose height is greater than 

1100 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 

572, subpart S dummy. 

(f) A child restraint that is 

manufactured after August 1, 2007, and 

that is recommended by its 

manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 

for use either by children in a specified 

mass range that includes any children 

having a mass greater than 22.7 kg or by 

children in a specified height range that 

includes any children whose height is 

greater than 1100 mm is tested with a 

10-year-old child dummy conforming to 

the applicable specifications in 49 CFR 

part 572, subpart T. 

* * * * * 

S9.1 Type of clothing. 

* * * * * 

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

CFR Part 572, Subpart N), Hybrid III 6- 

year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR Part 

572, Subpart S), and Hybrid III 10-yearold dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart 

T). When used in testing under this 

standard, the dummy specified in 49 

CFR part 572, subpart N, weighted and 

unweighted, is clothed in a light-weight 

cotton stretch short-sleeve shirt and 

above-the-knee pants, and size 121⁄2 M 

sneakers with rubber toe caps, uppers of 

dacron and cotton or nylon and a total 

mass of 0.453 kg. 

* * * * * 

S9.3.2 When using the test dummies 

conforming to Part 572 Subparts N, P, R, 

S, or T (10-year-old dummy), prepare 

the dummies as specified in this 

paragraph. Before being used in testing 

under this standard, dummies must be 

conditioned at any ambient temperature 

from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any 

relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 

percent, for at least 4 hours. 

* * * * * 

S10.2.2 Three-year-old, six-year-old 

test and ten-year-old test dummy. 

Position the test dummy according to 

the instructions for child positioning 

that the restraint manufacturer provided 

with the system in accordance with 

S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to 

the following: 

* * * * * 

Issued: August 24, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–17218 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AG16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Gila Chub as 

Endangered With Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment, 

reopening of public comment period, 

notice of public hearings, and updated 

legal descriptions for critical habitat 

units. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment for the proposal to list as 

endangered and designate critical 

habitat for the Gila chub (Gila 

intermedia) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We are also reopening the public 

comment period for the proposal to list 

the Gila chub as endangered with 

critical habitat to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

and request changes to the proposed 

listing and critical habitat designation, 

as well as the associated draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment. 

The draft economic analysis finds that 

costs associated with Gila chub 

conservation activities are forecast to 

range from $11.3 million to $28.1 

million in constant dollars over 20 years 

($0.8 million to $1.9 million annually). 

In addition, we are proposing corrected 

legal descriptions for the critical habitat 

units. Comments previously submitted 

on the August 9, 2002, proposed rule 

need not be resubmitted as they have 

been incorporated into the public record 

and will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. We will 

hold three public informational sessions 

and hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES

sections). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES

section) on or before September 30, 

2005, or at the public hearings. 

We will hold public informational 

sessions from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

followed by a public hearing from 6:30 

p.m. to 8 p.m., on the following dates: 

1. September 13, 2005: Silver City, 

New Mexico. 

2. September 14, 2005: Thatcher, 

Arizona. 

3. September 15, 2005: Camp Verde, 

Arizona. 

ADDRESSES: Meetings. The public 

informational sessions and hearings will 

be held at the following locations: 

1. Silver City, NM: Flame Convention 

Center, 2800 Pinos Altos Road, Silver 

City, New Mexico. 

2. Thatcher, AZ: Eastern Arizona 

College Activity Center, Lee Little 

Theater (Information Session—Activity 

Center Quiet Lounge), 1014 North 

College Avenue, Thatcher, Arizona. 

3. Camp Verde, AZ: Camp Verde 

Unified School District Multi-Use 

Complex Theater, 280 Camp Lincoln 

Road, Camp Verde, Arizona.