Document ID: NHTSA-2014-0026-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Child Restraint Systems
Posted Date: 2014-02-25T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10396-10421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0026]
RIN 2127-AL35

Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule denies most aspects of a petition for 
reconsideration of a February 27, 2012, final rule that expanded the 
applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for child 
restraint systems to child restraints sold for children weighing up to 
36 kilograms (kg) (80 pounds (lb)). The petition stated, among other 
things, that a label that was required by the 2012 rule for certain 
child restraints was unclear and could be misunderstood. In response, 
NHTSA is making minor adjustments to the labeling requirement to make 
it clearer and more reader-friendly. For a year, manufacturers have the 
option of meeting the requirements of the February 27, 2012 rule or the 
rule as modified today. All other requests for substantive changes to 
the 2012 rule are denied.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments made by this final rule are 
effective February 27, 2014.
    Compliance dates: The compliance date of the amendments of this 
final rule is February 27, 2015. Optional early compliance is 
permitted. Accordingly, child restraints manufactured on or after 
February 27, 2014 until February 26, 2015, may comply by meeting either 
the requirements specified in the February 27, 2012, final rule (77 FR 
11626) or those requirements as amended by today's final rule. Child 
restraints manufactured on or after February 27, 2015 must meet the 
requirements as amended by today's final rule.
    If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by April 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
refer in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit 
your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590. For information on the Privacy Act, see Rulemaking Analyses 
and Notices section.
    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments 
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket 
Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for on-line access to 
the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Ms. 
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-6345) 
(Fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, 
Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). 
The mailing address of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration is: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Petition for Reconsideration
III. Correspondence
    a. The Label
    b. Other Issues
IV. Agency Response
    a. The Label
    b. Other Issues
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Introduction

    This final rule denies most aspects of a petition for 
reconsideration of a February 27, 2012, final rule (77 FR 11626) that 
expanded the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' from child restraint 
systems (CRSs) for children weighing up to 65 lb to CRSs for children 
weighing up to 80 lb. The final rule also adopted use of a 10-year-old 
child (10YO) test dummy (HIII-10C) to test CRSs manufactured for 
children weighing 65 to 80 lb. The test dummy weighs about 78 lb.
    Generally speaking, in NHTSA's compliance test for FMVSS No. 213, 
NHTSA has the choice of assessing the performance of a CRS when 
installed on a bench seat by way of the simulated lower anchorages of 
the ``child restraint anchorage system'' \1\ of the standard seat 
assembly or by a seat belt. That is, child restraint manufacturers must 
ensure that their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when 
NHTSA tests the CRS attached by the child restraint anchorage system 
connectors and when the agency tests the CRS attached by the seat belt. 
During the course of this particular rulemaking, the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) submitted a comment \2\ on an 
aspect of the rulemaking proposal relating to how NHTSA would use the 
10YO dummy in compliance tests, particularly with respect to an issue 
concerning attaching CRSs by the child restraint anchorage system.\3\ 
The Alliance pointed out that the child restraint anchorage system was 
developed by NHTSA to withstand crash forces in a crash generated by a 
mass on the system of 65 lb (mass of child plus that of CRS).\4\ Given 
such a design parameter, the group stated that vehicle manufacturers 
would never recommend that a CRS be installed using the vehicle child 
restraint anchorage system when used to restrain

[[Page 10397]]

children represented by the 10YO dummy (the dummy alone weighs about 78 
lb). Subsequently, the Alliance and the Association of Global 
Automakers (Global Automakers) submitted a joint comment stating that 
``review of the actual supporting test data and load calculations 
reveals that the LATCH load requirements were developed using a 
combined maximum child+CRS weight of 65 pounds.'' 5 6 The 
vehicle manufacturer groups also expressed concern about ``a trend 
toward increased weight of child restraints . . . [that] could call 
into question the validity of the 48 pound estimate for appropriate 
maximum child weight capacity.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1999, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint 
anchorage systems,'' which requires vehicle manufacturers to equip 
vehicles with child restraint anchorage systems that are 
standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. The child 
restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 is a 3-point 
system consisting of two lower anchorage points and an upper 
anchorage point. Each lower anchorage consists of a six millimeter 
(mm) diameter straight rod, or ``bar,'' onto which a CRS connector 
can be attached. The two lower anchorage bars are typically located 
at or near the seat bight. The upper anchorage (``tether 
anchorage'') is a part to which a tether hook of a CRS can be 
attached. The 1999 rule also amended FMVSS No. 213, ``Child 
restraint systems,'' to require CRSs to be equipped with connectors 
that enable the CRS to attach to the vehicle's lower anchorages of 
the child restraint anchorage system. A new head excursion 
performance requirement was added for forward-facing child 
restraints (other than booster seats), and to meet it, child 
restraints universally use a top tether strap affixed to the top of 
the restraints.
    \2\ NHTSA-2007-0048-0008.
    \3\ These are CRSs equipped with an internal harness (webbing) 
to restrain the child (``harness-equipped CRSs''). Forces from the 
mass of the child+CRS are imposed on the child restraint anchorage 
system. These are not ``belt-positioning seats'' used with a 
vehicle's Type II seat belt system.
    \4\ Assuming the mass of the CRS is about 17 lb, which is 
approximately the average mass of a CRS, the child restraint 
anchorage system is designed for children weighing up to about 48 lb 
(for a combined weight of 65 lb, from the weight of the CRS plus the 
weight of the child).
    \5\ NHTSA-2010-0158-0016.
    \6\ NHTSA notes: Many in the child passenger safety community 
refer to the child restraint anchorage system as the ``LATCH'' 
system, an abbreviation of the phrase ``Lower Anchors and Tethers 
for Children.'' The term was developed by a group of manufacturers 
and retailers soon after the 1999 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 
225 for use in educating consumers on the availability and use of 
the anchorage system and for marketing purposes.
    \7\ NHTSA-2010-0158-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information from the vehicle manufacturers was important to 
NHTSA in determining how we should use the new 10YO test dummy in 
compliance testing. After assessing all available information, NHTSA 
decided that it would not subject child restraints with internal 
harnesses to compliance testing using the 10YO test dummy while the CRS 
is attached by the child restraint anchorage system anchorages, since 
that scenario would be contrary to vehicle manufacturers' instructions 
for using child restraint anchorage systems and inconsistent with the 
design parameters of the anchorage system.
    Furthermore, the agency determined that, given that NHTSA will not 
test a child restraint with the child restraint anchorage system on the 
standard seat assembly using the 10YO dummy for the above reasons, 
there is a need to inform consumers on the use of child restraint 
anchorage systems to reduce the likelihood that a CRS would be used in 
a manner that is inconsistent with the assessed performance of the 
harness-equipped CRS and the design limits of child restraint anchorage 
systems. Some new harness-equipped CRSs have been produced that are 
heavier than all CRSs made in the past, and some are recommended for 
children weighing more than 48 lb.
    In the 2012 final rule, we adopted a labeling instruction informing 
consumers not to use the child restraint anchorage system when 
restraining a total weight of more than 65 lb.\8\ NHTSA determined that 
a label is needed to reduce the likelihood that consumers will use the 
child restraint anchorage system lower anchorages with a child+CRS 
weight that is too heavy for the anchorages, which would pose an 
unreasonable risk of overloading the vehicle anchorage system in a 
crash. Overloading the vehicle lower anchorages could be catastrophic 
for the child occupant, as the CRS could dislodge from the vehicle 
seat. The instruction provided a clear and consistent message regarding 
the use of the child restraint anchorage system and improved the 
current situation where consumers are provided inconsistent or no 
information about the child weight limit for the lower bars. The 
information helps to ensure that the child restraint anchorage systems 
(particularly the lower anchorages) are used in a manner that comports 
with the design parameters of the vehicle system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 3 points of child restraint anchorage systems are 
required to meet strength requirements designed around a 
``combined'' weight of 65 lb (combined weight of the child plus the 
CRS's weight) (``child+CRS weight'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petition for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received a petition for reconsideration on the label from 
several consumer advocates.\9\ The petitioners did not oppose informing 
consumers of the weight limits of the lower anchorages per se, but 
instead did not support a 65 lb limit. They requested that the 65 lb 
combined weight should be increased to 80 to 85 lb, believing this is 
needed to ``preserve the extended use of lower anchors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ D. Stewart and D. Donaldson (Safe Ride News), S. Tombrello 
(SafetyBeltSafe), J. Colella (Traffic Safety Projects) and B. 
Hoffman (Oregon Health Sciences University).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners believe that when NHTSA developed FMVSS No. 225, the 
agency referred several times in the preamble to a child weight of 65 
lb. Petitioners ``surmise that FMVSS 213 [sic] rule was for anchors to 
be strong enough to accommodate [CRSs] that would in themselves weigh 
at least 15, possibly 20 pounds, which implies a combined weight of at 
least 80 to 85 lbs.'' The petitioners state that ``the decision to 
adopt 65 pounds as the combined maximum weight . . . will unnecessarily 
restrict the use of the LATCH system and force caregivers back to using 
seat belts for anchoring forward-facing [CRSs].'' The petitioners also 
state that their intent in petitioning for reconsideration of the rule 
was to ``minimize the likelihood that vehicle manufacturers will apply 
the same formula'' to tether anchorages.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The petitioners also suggested that NHTSA undertake a 
number of initiatives to upgrade various child restraint anchorage 
system requirements or improve CRS safety. Most of the suggestions 
were beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be discussed 
further in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Correspondence

a. The Label

    A number of persons sent letters or met with NHTSA in support of 
the petition for reconsideration or to ask questions about the labeling 
requirement.\11\ Several suggest that NHTSA suspend the requirement for 
the label, increase the 65 lb combined weight limit on the label, or 
require vehicle manufacturers to increase the strength of child 
restraint anchorage systems to accommodate a higher combined weight. 
Several letter writers express the view that the final rule should have 
addressed tether weight limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Copies of letters are in the docket for the final rule: 
Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0176. NHTSA has also placed in the docket 
memoranda describing various meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several of the letters and other submissions are summarized below.
    Representatives from the Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel) and others 
met with NHTSA to express their view that the new labeling requirement 
reduces use of child restraint anchorage systems. They believe that the 
current status quo (current recommendations and practice) is to use 
child restraint anchorage systems for installing child restraints with 
internal harnesses for a child weight up to 48 lb. They also add that 
child safety seats now weigh between 15 to 33 lb, so the new label 
would exclude the use of child restraint anchorage systems for a 
``large'' number of children who are still in harnessed-CRSs. They 
state that because child restraint anchorage systems are easier to use 
and have a higher rate of correct installation than seat belts, a child 
restraint anchorage system installation is safer than a belt 
installation. They suggest that in the short term, NHTSA should suspend 
the new label requirement, and that in the long term, NHTSA should 
increase the strength of the child restraint anchorage system.
    Safe Ride News (SRN) wrote in a letter that the agency should 
suspend the labeling requirement because the label will ``cause a lot 
of confusion'' and affect public perception of the safety of child 
restraint anchorage systems ``without improving actual safety in any 
significant way.'' The letter writer believes that public education 
messages

[[Page 10398]]

will become ``extremely muddied due to the variability from CR [child 
restraint] to CR.'' SRN also states its concern that ``lower-anchor 
weight limits will spill over to tether-anchor weight limits.'' 
Further, in another letter, SRN suggests that NHTSA require a child-
weight limit of 50 lb as a ``compromise'' that ``eliminates the formula 
of child-weight plus CR-weight.'' Under SRN's suggestion, child 
restraint manufacturers may set their own weight limits for the use of 
child restraint anchorage systems up to that ceiling with a possible 
lower weight limit for extremely heavy child restraint models.
    The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) submitted a 
letter in support of Dorel's submission and Safe Ride News' letter, 
repeating many points of earlier correspondence.\12\ Those points 
include that the extended use of lower anchorages should be preserved; 
that use of tethers should be increased; that efforts should be made to 
minimize the likelihood that vehicle manufacturers will similarly 
restrict tether anchor use; that parents might not remember or even 
initially know to switch to the seat belt during the several-year 
course of a CRS's use; and, that innovation by CRS manufacturers to 
reduce loads on anchors through energy management features should be 
supported. JPMA also expressed the view that NHTSA should suspend the 
label and ``consider strengthening the anchorage strength requirements 
of FMVSS 225 immediately.'' In a later submission, JPMA states that the 
label will result in ``lack of trust in LATCH'' because it results in 
varying weight limits, and in some cases weight limits lower than the 
40 or 48 lb currently used in the field. JPMA also believes that the 
label will lead to early graduation to boosters due to the wording on 
the label and because CRSs might not achieve a tight fit with a seat 
belt or may be too difficult to install with a seat belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NHTSA had discussed many of these points in the preamble to 
the February 27, 2012 final rule. For the most part, no new 
information bearing on the discussion was provided by JPMA's post 
final rule submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual, Alisa Baer, wrote that introducing ``strict lower 
anchor weight limits of CR + child = 65 pounds will further 
complicate'' child restraint anchorage systems. The letter writer 
states that parents typically do not understand how fast a child grows 
and that a parent may opt not to use a CRS when their child is on the 
cusp of the weight limit out of fear that the child will soon outgrow 
the CRS, when in reality the child could have much more time before 
exceeding the weight limit. The writer states that ``ugly numbers--like 
37 or 41 [lb]--are scary to parents & technicians,'' and ``will likely 
erode confidence in the LATCH system'' because people may ``[think] `is 
the LATCH system so fragile that if the child was 38 pounds instead of 
37 it might not hold in a crash?' ''
    Consumers Union sent a letter stating that it was ``worried that 
the new rules may encourage parents to secure heavier child seats using 
standard safety belts instead of the LATCH system.'' Consumers Union 
states that ``each CRS will still feature a different maximum 
recommended child weight limit, based on the differences between the 
seat's weight and the 65 lb limit of the lower LATCH anchors,'' which, 
the letter writer believes, will confuse caregivers.
    Diono \13\ sent a letter expressing its belief that the 65-lb 
combined weight threshold was ``far too conservative a limitation given 
the dynamic capacity of the lower anchors in vehicles'' and asks that 
NHTSA ``allow a maximum weight of CRS plus occupant to be limited to 80 
lbs with the use of lower anchors.'' These are the same arguments that 
Diono made in response to the NPRM when the company was named Sunshine 
Kids. Diono believes that there is ``much data from testing analysis 
that has shown lower anchors support total masses larger than the 
proposed limit of 30.5 kg,'' and states that it has data from its sled 
testing which ``show that with a combined mass of 78 lbs to ~110 lbs 
the lower anchors see dynamic loads well within the dynamic capacity of 
the lower anchors.'' Diono also states that ``ECE-R44 has recommended 
the combined weight limit be 33 kgs (Combined mass of CRS plus 
occupant) or 72.6 lbs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A child restraint manufacturer previously known as 
``Sunshine Kids.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance submitted correspondence focused on the need for the 
label to address rear-facing child restraints equipped with an internal 
harness that are sold for heavier children, which are used without a 
tether. The Alliance highlights that it reviewed ``some of the heavier 
3-in-1 child restraints currently on the market, especially those which 
have been certified for use up to 40/45 lbs rearward-facing,'' and 
notes that ``a potential weight combination of up [sic] 73.8 lbs 
becomes apparent--without use of a tether.'' The Alliance seeks ``to 
ensure that the label is also applied to rear-facing child 
restraints.''

b. Other Issues

    NHTSA also received correspondence from Graco asking that harness-
equipped CRSs recommended for children up to 70 lb in weight should be 
excluded from the head excursion requirements if the CRS height 
restrictions do not accommodate the HIII-10C dummy.
    Graco also raises a question about S5(f) of the final rule, which 
applies to harness-equipped CRSs. S5(f) refers to the weight of the 
test dummy used to test the CRS. Graco suggests that NHTSA publish a 
list of the weights for each test dummy to make it ``easy for 
manufacturers to determine which [anthropomorphic test device] and CRS 
combinations need to be tested with each type of belt and provide more 
standardized results for consumers.''

IV. Agency Response

    NHTSA has evaluated all relevant issues presented above and has 
made the following decisions in responding to those issues.

a. The Label

A Label Is Necessary To Address a Safety Need
    NHTSA has determined that the information presented by the label in 
question is necessary to address a safety need. The information reduces 
the likelihood that consumers will use the child restraint anchorage 
system with a combined weight of child plus CRS weight too high for the 
anchorages in a crash. FMVSS No. 225 requires the anchorage system to 
withstand crash forces resulting from a combined (child+CRS) mass of 65 
lb.\14\ Not having information about the weight limits poses an 
unreasonable risk of overloading the child restraint anchorage system 
given that CRS weights are increasing (currently there is no limit on 
the size and mass of CRSs), harness-equipped CRSs are being produced 
that are marketed for children of heavier masses than 40 lb, and peak 
vehicle accelerations are much higher now (some exceed 60 g) than the 
48 g the agency had assumed in 1999 when designing the strength 
requirements of FMVSS No. 225. We believe that information about child 
weight limits needs to be provided on the CRS, given the design limits 
of child restraint anchorage systems and the changing physical demands 
on the system from modern child restraint and vehicle designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ At the time FMVSS No. 225 was established, forward-facing 
harness-equipped CRSs weighed about 15 lb on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an April 11, 2011 letter to NHTSA, the Alliance and Global 
Automakers expressed support for a label such as that adopted by the 
2012 rule. These

[[Page 10399]]

vehicle manufacturer groups expressed concern ``that there appears to 
be a trend toward increased weight of child restraints. This trend, if 
it continues, could call into question the validity of the 48 pound 
estimate for appropriate maximum child weight capacity.'' NHTSA agrees 
that this development is a cause for concern, and believes that the 
labeling requirement addresses this potential safety problem.
    The market has not provided the information consumers need. Vehicle 
and CRS users' manuals have conflicting or a lack of information on the 
maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use. Most vehicle 
manufacturers do not include a child weight limit for lower anchor use 
in their vehicle owner's manual. A 2011 manual developed by SRN, 
``LATCH Manual,''\15\ indicates that only about 54 percent of vehicle 
``makes'' provides information on the weight limits of child restraint 
anchorage systems.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The ``LATCH Manual,'' developed by SRN 
(www.saferidenews.com), compiles material such as the vehicle 
manufacturers' recommendations for the maximum child weight limit 
for using the child restraint anchorage system. The manual is used 
by child passenger safety technicians participating in a child seat 
checkup program run by a nonprofit organization called SafeKids as a 
look-up tool for installing child restraints in vehicles.
    \16\ In the 2011 LATCH Manual, 12 percent of vehicle makes 
recommended 40 lb as the child weight limit for lower anchor use and 
42 percent recommended 48 lb. In the 2013 LATCH Manual, 8 percent of 
vehicle manufacturers recommended a child weight limit of 48 lb 
while 64 percent recommended the combined CRS+child weight limit of 
65 lb for lower anchor use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Child restraint manufacturers' recommendations for using the child 
restraint anchorage system are also varied and generally unhelpful. 
NHTSA reviewed approximately 40 CRS manuals from different CRS 
manufacturers to see the current recommendations of CRS manufacturers. 
In our sample, Dorel and Evenflo did not specify a maximum child weight 
for use with the child restraint anchorage system. Graco and Recaro 
specified using the vehicle manufacturer's weight limits for use of the 
child restraint anchorage system and also specified a maximum child 
weight of 48 lb for use of the anchorages. Britax recommended that 
consumers follow vehicle manufacturers' instructions and that, if a 
vehicle manufacturer does not provide a limit, consumers should assume 
a 40 lb maximum child weight limit for lower anchors. Diono recommended 
use of the child restraint anchorage system for children weighing up to 
65 lb (corresponding to the weight of a 50th percentile 9.5 year-old) 
and even, for some models, 80 lb (corresponding to the weight of a 50th 
percentile 11 year-old).
    Since most vehicles do not specify a child weight limit for lower 
anchor use, and since CRS instruction manuals generally have no 
information (e.g., Dorel and Evenflo), refer to the vehicle owner's 
manual (Graco, Britax, Recaro), or have conflicting information on the 
child weight limit for using the lower anchorages (Graco, Recaro), many 
consumers are unaware or unsure as to the weight limits of child 
restraint anchorage systems. A consumer looking in the CRS manual might 
be referred to a non-existent vehicle owner's manual instruction on 
child weight limits for lower anchor use, or might be informed that the 
anchorage system may be used to a weight beyond the intended design 
limit of many if not most vehicles' anchorage systems.
    This problematic situation can be fixed if the CRS has the required 
information about the weight limits. With the information, consumers 
will have convenient access to facts about the child weight limit for 
lower anchor use. A label with the information will provide clear and 
consistent information for determining the child weight limit for lower 
anchor use, which will be easily accessible to the caregiver at all 
times.\17\ Consumers following this information will virtually 
eliminate the risk of anchorage failure in a crash.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition, the agency has plans to promote the label and 
provide consumer education regarding the new label.
    \18\ We recognize that currently there are no reported anchorage 
failures in on the road vehicles. However, the risk of anchorage 
failure exists to such an extent today that NHTSA would like to be 
proactive in addressing this risk. In the past, there has been a low 
incidence of heavier children in CRSs with internal harnesses. This 
could very well change in the future as NHTSA and other groups are 
encouraging caregivers to keep children in harness-equipped CRSs for 
a longer time. Moreover, CRSs are being produced for children of 
increasingly heavier weights. Also, crash pulses of newer vehicles 
are higher and child restraints themselves are getting heavier. We 
believe that a problem of anchorage failures is in the making, so we 
are addressing the situation now before the problem comes to 
fruition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe that specifying a combined (child+CRS) weight 
limit in the vehicle owners' manual rather than on a CRS label would be 
as effective at communicating the information as placing a label on the 
CRS. First, the consumer will need to determine the weight of the CRS 
and then calculate the maximum child weight limit. We believe that 
these additional actions required by the consumer are unreasonable; the 
consumer is unlikely to take the step of assessing the CRS weight or 
may not bother to make the calculation. Second, a recent survey \19\ 
conducted by the agency showed that only 14 percent of caregivers use 
the vehicle owners' manuals for information about installing CRSs. This 
indicates that most consumers will not learn of the instruction by way 
of the vehicle owner's manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS), DOT HS 
811 679, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with JPMA's and Diono's assertion that the label will 
result in lack of confidence in child restraint anchorage systems. We 
believe that the label will provide clear and consistent information on 
the use of child restraint anchorage systems and will thereby promote 
more trust in child restraint anchorage systems. More importantly, the 
information will virtually eliminate the risk of a failure of an 
anchorage system in attaching a CRS to the vehicle.\20\ Such failures, 
not the label, would reduce consumer confidence in child restraint 
anchorage systems. We are taking action now to instruct consumers of 
the intended use of the anchorage system to avoid failures in the 
field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted earlier, we recognize that there are no reported 
anchorage failures in on the road vehicles. However, the risk of 
anchorage failure exists. In the past, there has been a low 
incidence of heavier children in CRSs with internal harnesses. This 
could change in the future as NHTSA and other groups are encouraging 
caregivers to keep children in harness-equipped CRSs for longer 
time, and CRSs are being produced for heavier and heavier children. 
Also, crash pulses of newer vehicles are higher and child restraints 
themselves are getting heavier. We believe that a problem of 
anchorage failures is in the making, so we are addressing the 
situation now before the problem arises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Strength Was Based on a 65-lb Combined Weight Limit
    The petitioners state that they wish to ``preserve the extended use 
of lower anchors.'' They state that the preamble for the final rule 
establishing FMVSS No. 225 refers to a child weight of 65 lb, and that 
the intent of the agency in establishing the standard was ``for anchors 
to be strong enough to accommodate CRs [sic] that would in themselves 
weigh at least 15, possibly 20 pounds, which implies a combined weight 
of at least 80 to 85 lbs.''
    Agency Response: The petitioners' view is incorrect. The preambles 
\21\ analyzing, explaining, and developing the rationale for FMVSS No. 
225's strength requirement overwhelmingly refer to a combined weight 
(child+CRS) of 65 lb. The entire engineering analysis upon which the 
strength requirement

[[Page 10400]]

was based uses a combined weight of 65 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., final rule, response to petitions for 
reconsideration, 68 FR 38208, June 27, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, NHTSA explained the basis for FMVSS No. 225's 15 kN 
strength requirement in a 2003 document responding to petitions for 
reconsideration of various aspects of the 1999 final rule. NHTSA stated 
that the agency based the strength requirement--

on an analysis of the forces that are likely to be imposed on a 
LATCH system in a crash. NHTSA agrees [with a petitioner] that the 
maximum expected force acting on the center of gravity of a child in 
a child restraint is calculated as the total mass of the child and 
the child restraint system (``the child/CRS system'') multiplied by 
the acceleration of the system. . . . Assuming a child and child 
restraint mass of 29.7 kg (65 lb), the dynamic force expected to act 
through the center of gravity of the child/CRS system in a 48.4 g 
crash is approximately 14,100 N. [Emphasis added.] 68 FR 38208, 
39218-38219, June 27, 2003.

    References to a ``child'' weight of 65 lb rather than to a 
``combined'' weight in the 2010 SNPRM were in error, as the Alliance, 
JPMA and others have pointed out. Such references were imprecise and 
limited in describing the assumptions underlying the strength 
requirement of child restraint anchorage systems. The Alliance 
explained that the load calculations for the 15 kN strength requirement 
were based on a combined maximum (child+CRS) weight of 65 lb.\22\ The 
Alliance and others were concerned that the proposed wording that 
referred to a 65-lb child weight did not adequately account for the 
weight of the CRS and thus would be providing misinformation. NHTSA 
agreed with the commenters and made the correction in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In its comment JPMA also supported using the combined 
weight (child+CRS), rather than child weight alone, to avoid 
overloading the anchorages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The present petitioners state that ``What is proposed [sic] in the 
final rule, is, in effect, a major change of interpretation of anchor 
weight limits without any opportunity for assessment and comment that 
is usual in regulatory changes.''
    This assertion is without merit. As explained above, the agency did 
not make a ``change of interpretation of anchor weight limits'' by 
basing the final rule on a combined child+CRS weight of 65 lb. A 65 lb 
combined weight limit was the established engineering basis for the 
strength requirement of FMVSS No. 225 from the beginning of the 
standard. The 2010 SNPRM was in error in referring to a child weight 
alone of 65 lb. The 2012 final rule remedied the error by referencing 
combined weight (child+CRS).
    Moreover, the weight to which the label refers was an issue well 
within the scope of the present rulemaking. The question of the weight 
limits of child restraint anchorage systems and the safe use of the 
anchorage system with heavier children were crucial aspects of the 2010 
SNPRM (see section VII.a. of the SNPRM, 75 FR at 71659). Upon proposing 
a label to inform consumers of the limits of the child restraint 
anchorage system, the SNPRM specifically asked for comment on the child 
weight variable: ``Comments are requested on the label's reference to 
the 65 lb (29.5 kg) threshold.'' 75 FR at 71659.
    In addition, vehicle manufacturer groups (Alliance and Global 
Automakers) and JPMA commented on the SNPRM, informing NHTSA that the 
proposed wording that referred to a 65-lb child weight alone did not 
adequately account for the weight of the CRS and was thus providing 
incorrect information. NHTSA benefited from the comments and corrected 
the weight limit to reflect the weight of the child+CRS, as designed by 
FMVSS No. 225, in the final rule. The agency was not required to 
reissue another proposal for notice and comment to make this 
correction.
    Diono believes that there is ``much data from testing analysis that 
has shown lower anchors support total masses larger than the proposed 
limit of 30.5 kg'' and states that it has data from its sled testing 
which ``show that with a combined mass of 78 lbs to ~ 110 lbs the lower 
anchors see dynamic loads well within the dynamic capacity of the lower 
anchors.'' Diono believes that its tests show that, with a combined 
child and child restraint weight of 80 lb, the dynamic loads on the 
anchors are in the range of 9 kN at each lower anchor. Diono also 
states that NHTSA has tested CRSs (some weighing 30 lb) for many years 
using the Hybrid III 6-year-old (HIII-6C) dummy weighing 48 lb (for a 
combined weight of 78 lb) as part of its compliance program with no 
anchorage failures. Based on this information, Diono concludes that 
there is a very safe margin with the use of lower anchorages for a 
combined child and CRS weight of 80 lb.
    The agency disagrees that Diono's test data indicate that NHTSA 
should amend the labeling requirement in such a way that condones the 
use of the lower anchorages with a combined child and CRS weight of 80 
lb. Diono's testing consisted of sled tests using the FMVSS No. 213 
test bench and a sled pulse (47 G pulse and a 35 mph velocity) 
representing the crash pulse of a 2001 Toyota Echo in an NCAP frontal 
crash test. The docket submissions from Diono show that for sled tests 
performed with the 47 G pulse and combined child and CRS weight of 82 
lb (65 lb dummy + estimated 17 lb CRS) and 97 lb (80 lb dummy + 
estimated 17 lb CRS), the peak total load on the child restraint 
anchorages were 25.7-27.3 kN. Those loads clearly exceed the 15 kN 
quasi-static load minimum strength requirement of the anchorage system 
per FMVSS No. 225.
    Furthermore, while the Toyota Echo pulse at 48 G in an NCAP test 
was considered a severe pulse in early 2000s, current NCAP data shows 
that many recent vehicle models have stiffer front ends than the Echo, 
with peak accelerations in excess of 50 G.
    Additionally, Diono's data are inadequate because the data were 
obtained from sled tests conducted with an FMVSS No. 213 test bench 
seat. The child restraint anchorage system bars on the bench seat are 
designed and constructed to withstand repeated loading in 30-35 mph 
sled tests, i.e., they are reinforced over and above the anchorages of 
actual vehicles. Diono did not provide any actual vehicle test data 
(static or dynamic). The strength of child restraint anchorage systems 
in vehicles is evaluated according to specifications in FMVSS No. 225, 
which include a quasi-static load test of 15 kN applied to the lower 
anchors and tethers and a quasi-static load test of 11 kN applied only 
to the lower anchors. The lack of anchorage failures on NHTSA's test 
bench does not indicate that real-world vehicles' anchorages are strong 
enough to hold the force generated by higher weight children.
    Diono referred to Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 44 
(ECE R.44), ``Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power-Driven 
Vehicles,'' and ECE R.14, ``Safety Belt Anchorages, ISOFIX Anchorages, 
and Top Tether Anchorages,'' stating that these regulations limit to 
72.6 lb the combined weight of child and child restraint for ISOFIX 
use, even though ECE R.14 has slightly less stringent requirements on 
the ISOFIX anchors than FMVSS No. 225.
    NHTSA does not find this view persuasive. For one thing, ECE R.44 
limits the maximum child weight for CRSs with harnesses and CRSs 
equipped with ISOFIX to 40 lb, and specifies that the CRS weight be 
less than or equal to 33 lb. FMVSS No. 213 does not have such 
limitations on CRS design at this time. Thus, the overall risk of 
overloading the anchors in Europe is inherently lower than in the

[[Page 10401]]

U.S. In this country, a label is needed to limit the weight on the 
anchorages to within design parameters.
    Second, no showing has been made by Diono that the ECE requirements 
are sufficient to meet the safety need in the U.S. that is met by FMVSS 
No. 225. In a 2010 Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) contract 
report, Hynd et al.\23\ noted that there is evidence that the current 
ECE R.14 anchorage strength test requirements may be inadequate for 
some dummy and CRS combinations allowed in ECE R.44. We are not 
convinced that FMVSS No. 225's requirements should be made similar to 
those of ECE R.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Hynd, M., Pitcher, M., Hynd, D., Robinson, B., Carroll, 
J.A., ``Analysis for the development of legislation on child 
occupant protection,'' Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) 
Report, Prepared for the European Commission under the specific 
contract no. SI2:555655 and in the framework contract no. ENTR/05/
17.01, July 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/projects/report-child-occupant-protection_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Diono also states that the 2012 final rule's labeling requirement 
on lower anchor use contradicts Transport Canada's recent update of 
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
restraint systems,'' which permits the use of lower anchors to install 
child restraints with harnesses for children weighing up to 65 lb.
    We do not agree. Transport Canada has yet to consider the recent 
updates to FMVSS No. 213 incorporating the 10-year-old dummy for 
testing child restraints. We expect Canada to have similar issues as 
the U.S. regarding child restraint misuse, incorrect installations, and 
consumer confusion as to the child restraint anchorage systems. 
Transport Canada may be considering the merits of the label in the 
future.
Empirical Data
    The petitioners request that NHTSA ``provide any test or field data 
suggesting the need for a reinterpretation of the original statement 
that FMVSS 225 was devised for a child weighing 65 to 80 . . . lbs.'' 
As explained above, FMVSS No. 225 was developed to ensure that crash 
forces generated by a 65 lb combined weight will be withstood; it did 
not presume a child weight alone of 65 to 80 lb. The label is intended 
to inform consumers about the design limits of child restraint 
anchorage systems and to keep use of the lower anchorages to within the 
anchorage system's design limits. The engineering analyses underlying 
the FMVSS No. 225 strength requirement have been fully discussed. The 
agency is not obligated to provide ``test or field data'' to justify 
why we disagree with the petitioners' view that the weight limit should 
be based on a child weight alone of 65 to 80 lb.
    Nonetheless, there are empirical data on this issue. There has been 
failure of a child restraint anchorage system in testing conducted by 
Transport Canada (30-35 mph) involving full frontal rigid barrier crash 
tests of model year (MY) 2009 and 2010 vehicles. Transport Canada 
placed child restraints in the outboard rear seating positions using 
the child restraint anchorage system (including the top tether).\24\ 
The program involved 28 crash tests with the HIII-6C dummy and 4 crash 
tests with the HIII-10C dummy. The weight of the CRSs used in the tests 
ranged from 11.4 lb to 25.11 lb. The peak vehicle acceleration in these 
crash tests ranged from 30 g to 68 g. The total anchorage loads (sum of 
forces on the lower anchors and the tether anchor) ranged from 7.5 kN 
to 20.8 kN with the HIII-6C dummy, and from 13.3 kN to 20.4 kN with the 
HIII-10C dummy (see Tables A1(a) and A1(b) in the Appendix to this 
preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Details of the Transport Canada tests are available in the 
docket for this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The failure occurred in a 35 mph frontal crash test of a 2010 Kia 
Forte with the HIII-10C dummy restrained in Safety 1st Apex 65 child 
restraint. The CRS was installed in the right outboard rear seat with 
lower and top tether anchorages. The CRS weighed about 13 lb. The 
combined weight (child+CRS) in this test was 90 lb, the peak vehicle 
acceleration was 46 G. The total maximum anchorage loads measured in 
this test was 20,395 N. During the test, the inboard anchor, which was 
held in place by two bolts, pulled through the sheet metal resulting in 
a failure at the attachment point. The anchorage failure demonstrates a 
finite limit to the strength of the child restraint anchorages.
    We are concerned that there are factors in play that have developed 
in recent years that raise the possibility that the limits of the child 
restraint anchorage system will be surpassed in more and more vehicles 
by the ordinary use of modern day CRSs in modern vehicles if measures 
are not in place to prevent this from happening. CRSs with internal 
harnesses are being produced that are recommended for children weighing 
65 lb or more. The average weight of CRSs was 15 lb when FMVSS No. 225 
was first issued; now CRSs are marketed that weigh more than 30 lb. 
Further, the strength requirements of the child restraint anchorage 
system were based on a 48 g vehicle acceleration, which is a level 
being surpassed among current vehicle models in a 35 mph frontal crash. 
In contrast, there are vehicle models in the current fleet that have 
peak vehicle acceleration in excess of 50 g in a 35 mph frontal crash.
    Also presented in the Appendix in Tables A1(a) and A1(b) are the 
results of NHTSA's computed maximum total inertial loads on the child 
restraint anchorage system (F) using the combined weight of the child 
dummy and the CRS (m) and the peak vehicle acceleration (a),\25\ using 
Newton's second law of motion (F=ma).\26\ A comparison of the measured 
and computed total anchorage loads indicates that in 13 of 32 tests (41 
percent), the computed anchorage loads were within 10 percent of the 
measured anchorage loads. In an additional 13 tests (40 percent), 
computed anchorage loads were within 20 percent of the measured loads. 
The general similarity between the measured and computed values 
provides a source of confidence in the anchorage strength requirements 
in FMVSS No. 225, which was based on a similar inertial load 
computation using a combined CRS+child weight of 65 lb and a peak 
acceleration of 48 G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The vehicle accelerations were filtered in accordance with 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J211, ``Instrumentation for 
Impact Test--Part-1-Electronic Instrumentation,'' with SAE channel 
filter class (CFC) 60 (100 Hz).
    \26\ This is the same methodology used in the June 27, 2003 
final rule (68 FR 38208) responding to petitions for reconsideration 
of the March 5, 1999, rule establishing FMVSS No. 225 (see 68 FR at 
38218 for the rationale for this method of analysis). This analysis 
assumes that the child restraint is fully coupled to the vehicle and 
ignores friction between the CRS and the vehicle seat. It also 
assumes that the child dummy is coupled to the child restraint and 
ignores friction between the dummy and CRS surface. These are 
reasonable assumptions if the child restraint is securely attached 
to the lower anchors and tether anchor and the CRS internal 
harnesses are snugly attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Almost all of the tests showed the integrity of present day child 
restraint anchorage systems in vehicles. The relatively low rate of 
anchorage failures in the Transport Canada vehicle crash tests may be 
because many vehicle manufacturers are designing the child restraint 
anchorage systems to be stronger than that required by FMVSS No. 225; 
the anchorage loads from the combined CRS+dummy weight and the peak 
vehicle acceleration were within the strength capabilities of vehicle 
anchorages.
    Diono suggests a combined child+CRS weight limit of 80 lb. We 
believe that this suggestion raises an unreasonable risk that the lower 
anchorages would be overloaded, resulting in anchorage failure. The 
computed total child restraint anchorage load for a peak

[[Page 10402]]

vehicle acceleration of 65 g and a combined child+CRS weight of 80 lb 
is 23,187 N, which is significantly higher than the measured total 
anchorage loads in the Transport Canada test series. Since there are 
vehicle models with peak vehicle accelerations of approximately 60-70 
g,\27\ having total anchorage loads exceeding 23,000 N is a distinct 
possibility if the combined weight limit is increased to 80 lb as 
suggested. Thus, we decline the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The peak vehicle acceleration of the 2012 Ford 500 is 73 g 
and that of the Toyota Scion IQ is 68 g in the NCAP 35 mph full 
frontal rigid barrier crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another matter of concern to us is the low usage rate of the tether 
anchor and how nonuse of the tether, among other things, results in 
higher loads being imposed on the lower anchorages. Our survey data 
\28\ indicates that approximately 30 percent of forward-facing child 
restraints that are installed using the lower anchorages do not have 
the tether attached. To study this and other issues, NHTSA performed 
sled tests at the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) to 
measure the loads experienced by child restraint anchorages in a 
simulated crash. VRTC conducted 24 sled tests using the weighted 6-
year-old Hybrid III dummy and three child seat models (Safety 1st Apex 
65, Sunshine Kids Radian 65 and Britax Frontier 85) in two vehicle 
bucks (2010 Kia Forte and 2010 Ford Focus).\29\ The child restraint 
models were selected because these models are marketed for heavier/
older children, and because these CRSs were tested in the vehicle crash 
tests at Transport Canada. The two vehicle bucks were selected because 
both the Kia Forte and the Ford Focus had high measured anchorage loads 
in the Transport Canada frontal vehicle crash test program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811 679, 
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf.
    \29\ Amenson, T; Sullivan, L. ``Frontal Sled Tests to Measure 
and Evaluate Loads on Child Restraint Anchorages,'' NHTSA Report, 
copy placed in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency selected two 35 mph, 35 g and 100 millisecond (ms) 
pulses to simulate a frontal crash. One of the pulses was front loaded 
while the second one was rear loaded (see Figure 1).\30\ These two 
acceleration pulses were selected to cover the different vehicle 
acceleration pulse shapes observed in 35 mph full frontal rigid barrier 
crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ A front or rear loaded pulse is defined by the location of 
the peak acceleration relative to the midpoint of the pulse. If the 
peak is before the midpoint of the pulse, the pulse is front loaded 
and if it is after the midpoint, the pulse is rear loaded.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.000

    The agency specifically selected the Kia Forte because of the lower 
anchorage failure observed in the vehicle crash test conducted by 
Transport Canada (discussed in the previous section). Transport 
Canada's tests used the Safety 1st Apex 65 CRS (approximately 13 lb) 
and the HIII-10C dummy (77 lb), for a combined weight of about 90 lb. 
VRTC's test used the same Safety 1st CRS model and a weighted HIII-6C 
dummy (66 lb), for a combined weight of approximately 79 lb.
    VRTC conducted a sled test with the Kia Forte buck and a front 
loaded sled pulse (shown in Figure 1), with the CRS installed in the 
right rear outboard seating position using the lower anchors and the 
top tether. Post-test evaluation showed some deformation of the sheet 
metal with some forward pull of the lower anchorages but not a complete 
failure of the anchorages. The total anchorage loads (lower 
anchors+tether) was measured to be 17,330 N and the total load on the 
lower anchors (inboard+outboard) was 11,666 N (See Table A2 in the 
Appendix). However, VRTC later conducted another test, identical to the 
first except the tether was not attached. In that test, there was 
complete failure of the lower anchor

[[Page 10403]]

hardware. The entire bolt and nut assembly pulled through the sheet 
metal. The total measured force on the lower anchors in this test was 
14,922 N, which is 30 percent higher than the total lower anchor load 
in the earlier test with the tether attached.
    NHTSA has reviewed all the sled tests conducted at VRTC (three 
child restraints in two vehicle bucks) and has determined that the 
ratio of lower anchor loads (when the tether is not attached) to lower 
anchor loads (when the tether is attached) ranges from 1.3 to 1.6. That 
is, these sled test results indicate that the loads on the lower 
anchorages are 30-60 percent higher when the tether is not used to 
install the CRS than when the full child restraint anchorage system 
(lower anchors+tether anchor) are used to install the CRS.
    Thus, in further answer to Diono and others as to why we disagree 
with the suggested approach to increase weights to 80 lb, there is 
evidence of lower anchor failure when the tether was not attached at a 
combined weight of only 78 lb. Since we have evidence that 30 percent 
of forward-facing child restraints installed using the lower anchorages 
do not have the tether attached in the real world,\31\ the labeling 
requirement reduces the possibility of field failure of lower 
anchorages, such as that observed in the sled test with the Kia Forte 
buck, when the combined (child and child restraint) weight approaches 
80 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811 679, 
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments To Revise the Labeling Requirement \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The following discussion pertains to requirements that 
apply only to CRSs equipped with an internal harness to restrain the 
child and with components to attach to the lower anchorages of a 
child restraint anchorage system, and for which the combined weight 
of the CRS and the maximum recommended child weight for use with the 
internal harness exceeds 65 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners would like to ``preserve the extended use of lower 
anchors.'' Ms. Baer said in correspondence to NHTSA that ``ugly 
numbers--like 37 or 41 [lb]--are scary to parents & technicians,'' and 
``will likely erode confidence in the LATCH system.'' Consumers Union 
stated its belief that it will confuse caregivers when ``each CRS will 
still feature a different maximum recommended child weight limit, based 
on the differences between the seat's weight and the 65 lb limit of the 
lower LATCH anchors.''
    Agency Response: NHTSA has evaluated the petition and the related 
correspondence and has decided to partially grant the petition. NHTSA 
is making two primary changes to the labeling requirement.
    First, we agree with the view that the wording of the label 
specified in the 2012 final rule could lead consumers to misunderstand 
the instruction, remove the harness from the CRS before they should, or 
otherwise not follow the instruction. NHTSA is thus amending 
S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of the 2012 final rule to remove the instruction from 
that section. Instead, the instruction will be placed on a diagram that 
FMVSS No. 213 presently requires to be on CRSs under S5.5.2(l) of the 
standard. S5.5.2(l)(3) requires CRSs to be labeled with an installation 
diagram showing the CRS installed in a seating position equipped with a 
child restraint anchorage system (S5.5.2(l)(3)). We are adding a 
provision to S5.5.2(l)(3) to specify that a statement about child 
weight be included with the diagram.
    The statement consists of a phrase, ``Do not install by this method 
for a child weighing more than * lb.'' The ``*'' value is the 
difference between 65 lb and the CRS weight, as discussed in the 2012 
final rule. Alternatively, as discussed in the next section, the ``*'' 
value may be rounded up, subject to certain conditions.
    An example of the installation diagram with the information for the 
child weight limit for lower anchor use and for promoting tether use is 
shown below in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.001

    The advantage of using the diagram is that it separates the child 
weight limit for lower anchor use from all the other information on the 
label in S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) and puts it in a location where relevant 
installation information is provided. It is also advantageous to use 
diagrams over words to communicate information. The instruction on 
weight limits is concise and clear. This change will add more clarity 
regarding the child weight limits and will also be easily available to 
the caregiver installing the CRS.
    Second, NHTSA concurs that the uniquely specific weight values 
provided on each CRS, based on the difference between 65 lb and the 
actual weight of the CRS, could be confusing to some consumers. For 
this reason, the agency is amending the final rule to add some 
flexibility in the maximum child weight calculation so that the label 
could be rounded up to display a child weight that is a multiple of 
five lb, which will be easier for consumers to remember, possibly less 
confusing to them, and appropriate from a safety point of view. This 
``rounding up'' of

[[Page 10404]]

the value is at the option of the manufacturer.
    To provide this flexibility, the agency balanced the merits of 
allowing the child weight limit to be rounded up with the need to avoid 
an unreasonable risk of potentially overloading the anchorages. We also 
recognized the need to give different accommodation for CRSs in the 
forward-facing and rearward-facing modes.
CRSs in the Forward-Facing Mode \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Again, this requirement applies only to forward-facing CRSs 
with internal harnesses for which the combined weight of the CRS and 
the maximum recommended child weight for use with internal harness 
exceeds 65 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is amending the February 27, 2012 final rule to permit CRS 
manufacturers some flexibility in the calculated child weight limit for 
use with child restraint anchorage systems. We are retaining the 
requirement that the CRS must specify a maximum child weight for lower 
anchor use unique to each CRS model. Under the 2012 final rule, the 
maximum child weight that must be specified on the label is less than 
or equal to the difference between 65 lb and the weight of the CRS in 
pounds. Under today's final rule, that requirement is retained, but we 
are also providing manufacturers an option of rounding the value up to 
the next multiple of 5 lb. We are adding a provision in FMVSS No. 213 
that specifies a lookup table for the maximum child weight limit in 
multiples of 5 lb for different weight ranges (65 - CRS weight (lb)) 
and are providing manufacturers the option of employing the table to 
round up the child weights. See Table 1, below.

                Table 1--For CRSs in Forward-Facing Mode
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Child weight
              x = 65 minus CRS Weight (lb)                limit on label
                                                               (lb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 < x <= 25............................................              25
25 < x <= 30............................................              30
30 < x <= 35............................................              35
35 < x <= 40............................................              40
40 < x <= 45............................................              45
45 < x <= 50............................................              50
50 < x <= 55............................................              55
55 < x <= 60............................................              60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that there is a possibility that this amendment will 
permit a manufacturer to indicate a child weight limit on the label 
that, when combined with the CRS weight, the combined (child+CRS weight 
limit) could marginally exceed 65 lb. For instance, if the CRS weighed 
19 lb, then x = 65 lb minus 19 lb = 46 lb; rounding up results in a 
child weight limit on the label) = 50 lb. This would lead to a combined 
(CRS + child) weight = 50 lb + 19 lb = 69 lb. Although this combined 
weight is greater to a slight degree than 65 lb, we believe this 
situation is acceptable for the following reasons.
    First, data indicate that vehicles are equipped with child 
restraint anchorage systems (lower anchorages plus tether anchorage) 
that sufficiently surpass the minimum strength requirement of FMVSS No. 
225 such that the anchorages will withstand crash forces generated by a 
combined (child+CRS) weight of 70 lb. NHTSA performed quasi-static 
tests on the child restraint anchorages in eleven MY 2006-2011 \34\ 
vehicle models and 18 MY 2013 vehicle models \35\ to explore the 
strength of the anchorages in the current fleet. (These vehicles were 
previously crash-tested, but NHTSA examined the vehicles to assess the 
condition of the child restraint anchorage systems to determine the 
suitability of the vehicles for inclusion in the quasi-static test 
program.) The tests consisted of pulling the lower anchorages alone at 
the two outboard rear seating positions using the Static Force 
Application Device 2 (SFAD 2) \36\ as specified in FMVSS No. 225, using 
the same loading rate but to higher loads or to anchorage failure. A 
static pull test was also conducted on the tether anchors alone in 
three rear seating positions using a cable at loading rates similar to 
that specified in FMVSS No. 225, but again to higher loads or to 
anchorage failure.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Velentin-Ruiz, et al. ``Quasi-static load tests to evaluate 
the strength of child restraint anchorage systems in MY 2006-2011 
vehicles,'' NHTSA Report, December 2013. See docket for this final 
rule.
    \35\ ``Quasi-static load tests to evaluate the strength of child 
restraint anchorage systems in MY 2013 vehicles,'' ALPHA Technology 
Associates, Inc., December 2013. See docket for this final rule.
    \36\ Shown in Figure 17 and 18 of FMVSS No. 225, ``Child 
restraint anchorage systems.''
    \37\ The agency had planned to test all the anchorages to 
failure. However, when the SFAD 2 broke in one of the tests before 
the vehicle anchorages failed, the agency decided to limit the 
quasi-static load to 20 kN for the lower anchors in the remaining 
tests to prevent continuously damaging and repairing the SFAD 2. In 
addition, the tether loads were limited to 10 kN to prevent damage 
to the equipment. Since the tether anchorage tests were performed 
after the lower anchorage tests, and because some of the vehicle 
seats experienced excessive seat damage and deformation during the 
lower anchorage tests, achieving target loads in the tether 
anchorage tests was not possible in some vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the 11 MY 2006-2011 vehicle models tested, 19 lower anchor 
sets (comprising two lower anchor bars) and 27 tether anchors were 
subjected to quasi-static loads. Of these, 14 lower anchor sets had 
strengths greater or equal to 20 kN, and all the tether anchors had 
strengths greater than 10 kN. Among the 18 MY 2013 vehicle models 
tested, 37 lower anchor sets and 46 tether anchors were subjected to 
quasi-static loads, among which 24 lower anchor sets had strengths 
greater than 20 kN and 25 tether anchors had strengths greater than 10 
kN.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In some tests, even though there was no anchorage failure, 
there was significant displacement and deformation of adjoining 
structures including the seat. In some cases, the target loads could 
not be achieved without failure of the anchorages because of 
significant deformation of the seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test results are set forth in a technical document placed in 
the docket. All in all, the results indicate that the quasi-static 
lower anchorage strength in current vehicles is significantly higher 
that required by FMVSS No. 225. The lowest force that produced lower 
anchor failure was 19.7 kN (2010 Kia Forte).\39\ Our testing suggests 
that child restraint anchorage systems as currently manufactured are 
capable of withstanding the forces from a combined weight of 70 lb in a 
crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ However, some vehicles may sustain significant rear seat 
movement at higher loads (such as that of the Toyota Yaris), which 
may result in an increase in the forward excursion of the CRS in a 
frontal crash. This suggests that while current child restraint 
anchorage designs are more robust than the minimum required designs, 
they do have strength limits and so may not be adequate for 
installing heavy child restraint models with very heavy or older 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, although there is no consistent and direct correlation 
between dynamic to static strength of anchorage systems and the dynamic 
to static strength ratio is vehicle specific, data show that child 
restraint anchorage systems are able to withstand higher loads 
dynamically than statically. Our test data demonstrate that the dynamic 
strength of the child restraint anchorage systems (lower anchors+tether 
anchor) in our tests was greater than the 15 kN load required by FMVSS 
No. 225. In the Alliance's petition for reconsideration of the strength 
requirements of the 1999 final rule, the Alliance indicated that the 
quasi-static test load of FMVSS No. 225 simulating a high-speed impact 
should be approximately 50 percent of the expected dynamic load.\40\ As 
discussed in the 2003 final rule responding to petitions for 
reconsiderations (68 FR 38218), Toyota determined that the tether 
anchorage was able to withstand about 30 percent greater loads 
dynamically than statically. NHTSA has considered these findings and 
believes that data indicate that the child restraint anchorage system 
will be able to withstand the crash

[[Page 10405]]

forces generated by the combined child weight (rounded up) + CRS 
weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 68 FR 38208, 38218; June 27, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRSs in the Rear-Facing Mode \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Again, this requirement applies only to rear-facing CRSs 
with internal harnesses for which the combined weight of the CRS and 
the maximum recommended child weight for use with internal harness 
exceeds 65 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rear-facing CRSs typically do not have a top tether attachment. 
When FMVSS No. 225 became effective in 1999, rear-facing child 
restraints were generally recommended for children weighing up to 20 
lb. Currently in the market, there are ``3-in-1'' child restraints that 
alone weigh more than 20 lb that are recommended to use rear-facing 
with children weighing up to 45 lb. Thus, for these CRSs, the combined 
weight of CRS and the maximum weight of child recommended for the CRS 
exceeds 65 lb. Since these rear-facing child restraints are only 
attached using the lower anchorages without a tether, the lower 
anchorages are subjected to greater loads in a crash than if a similar 
weight child and CRS were in the forward-facing mode with the tether 
attached.
    In its correspondence sent to the agency, the Alliance requested 
that NHTSA make clear that the label limiting the combined (child+CRS) 
weight to 65 lb for lower anchor use also must be placed on rear-facing 
child restraints.
    In response, we agree to reiterate that the labeling requirement of 
the February 2012 final rule applies to those CRSs using lower 
anchorages in the rear-facing mode. There is good reason for the 
applicability to these CRSs, as the safety need addressed by the label 
is relevant to rear-facing CRSs as it is to forward-facing CRSs. 
However, we believe that the combined child+CRS weight should not 
exceed 65 lb for CRSs in the rear-facing mode under any circumstances, 
unlike the potential 70 lb limit for forward-facing restraints using 
the 3-point anchorage attachment (lower anchors plus tether anchor). 
This is because FMVSS No. 225 requires the minimum strength of lower 
anchorages alone to be only 11 kN (compared to the 15 kN strength of 
the full 3-point anchorage system).
    Accordingly, manufacturers of covered rear-facing CRSs must specify 
a maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use. (Again, the covered 
CRSs are those that are recommended for use in the rear-facing mode, 
for which the combined weight of the CRS and the maximum recommended 
child weight for the rear-facing mode exceeds 65 lb.) We are retaining 
the provision that each covered CRS must be labeled with the maximum 
child weight for use with the lower anchors, which is less than or 
equal to the difference between 65 lb and the weight of the CRS in 
pounds. The CRS manufacturer is to provide the child weight on the 
installation diagram specified by S5.5.2(l).
    However, under today's final rule, we are also providing 
manufacturers an alternative of using a maximum child weight value that 
is a multiple of 5 lb by way of a lookup table. This alternative is 
adopted to enable manufacturers to avoid displaying an ``ugly number'' 
for the child weight. We are adding a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that 
specifies the lookup table for the maximum child weight limit in 
multiples of 5 lb for different weight ranges (60 - CRS weight (lb)) 
and are providing manufacturers the option of employing the table to 
obtain the maximum child weight limit. The maximum child weight limit 
is based on a calculation of 60 lb minus the weight of the CRS. We are 
using 60 lb rather than 65 lb as a starting point to ensure that the 
rounded value does not exceed 65 lb. This is important because for 
rear-facing restraints, the top tether will not be employed so the 
lower anchorages will be experiencing more crash forces than the full 
child restraint anchorage system. See Table 2, below.

                  Table 2--for CRSs in Rear-Facing Mode
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Child weight
                x = 60 - CRS weight (lb)                  limit on label
                                                               (lb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 < x <=20.............................................              20
20 < x <=25.............................................              25
25 < x <=30.............................................              30
30 < x <=35.............................................              35
35 < x <=40.............................................              40
40 < x <=45.............................................              45
45 < x <=50.............................................              50
50 < x <=55.............................................              55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our testing experience, we believe that a set of minimally 
compliant lower anchorages (with a quasi-static strength of 11 kN) has 
sufficient dynamic strength to withstand inertial loads from a combined 
weight of 65 lb in a 35 mph frontal crash.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Since the child restraint is not tightly coupled to the 
vehicle when the tether is not attached, we are unable to determine 
the combined child weight limit using Newtonian principles since the 
peak acceleration of the child restraint cannot be assumed to be 
that of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRSs Used Both Rear- and Forward-Facing
    For CRSs that have a rear-facing and forward-facing mode with 
internal harnesses, we prefer that the CRS provide installation 
diagrams in both modes along with a corresponding maximum child weight 
limit for lower anchor use, if such a limit is required. However, we 
are not requiring installation diagrams in both modes at this time. If 
a CRS manufacturer only provides one installation diagram and if a 
child weight limit is required in only one of the modes (rear-facing or 
forward-facing), then the diagram shall depict the installation in that 
particular mode along with the corresponding child weight limit. 
Alternatively, if a child weight limit is required in both modes and 
only one installation diagram is provided, then the child weight limit 
is either less than or equal to the difference between 65 and the CRS 
weight (lb) or the lesser of the child weight limits determined by way 
of Table 1 for the forward-facing mode and Table 2 for the rear-facing 
mode.
The Label's Effect on Current Weight Recommendations
    The petitioners express concern that the 65 lb combined maximum 
weight limit ``will unnecessarily restrict the use of the LATCH system 
and force caregivers back to using seat belts for anchoring forward-
facing'' child restraints.
    We do not agree that the new label will significantly reduce the 
number of CRSs that are installed with the lower anchorages of child 
restraint anchorage systems. Currently, technicians at child seat 
inspection stations recommend use of the child restraint anchorage 
system for children weighing between 40-48 lb, which corresponds to 
about a 6-year-old (see Table 3, below).\43\ We reviewed the weights of 
harness-equipped CRSs in the market since 2008 \44\ to assess what the 
child weight limit for lower anchor use would be per the new labeling

[[Page 10406]]

requirement. The detailed data are provided in Table A3 in the appendix 
to this preamble. Our review of 69 forward-facing harness-equipped CRSs 
showed that only 3 percent (2/69) of CRS models would have a child 
weight limit less than 40 lb. A child weight of 40 lb corresponds to a 
50th percentile 5-year-old child by weight (see Table 3, below). 
Twenty-nine (29) percent (20/69) would have a child weight limit of 40 
or 45 lb. Thirty-six (36) percent (25/69) would have a child weight 
limit greater or equal to 50 lb for lower anchor use per the new 
labeling requirement, which corresponds to approximately a 40th 
percentile 7-year-old child, by weight. Finally, 32 percent (22/69) 
would not require a label specifying maximum child weight for lower 
anchor use since the combined CRS and maximum recommended child weight 
in harness-equipped CRSs is less than 65 lb (17 of these CRSs have a 
recommended child weight of 40 lb and for the remaining 5 CRSs it is 50 
lb). Thus, the label will expand lower anchor use past the 48 lb child 
weight limit for forty-four (44) percent of child restraints, and only 
restricts approximately 3 percent of CRS models to a child weight limit 
less than 40 lb for lower anchor use. Overall, the label will not 
reduce current lower anchor use but will provide clarity and assurance 
that the anchors can be used as the child grows, which may in fact 
increase use of the anchors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ We understand that fitting station technicians currently 
use a child weight limit of 40 lb (corresponding to the weight of a 
50th percentile 5-year-old child) if the child weight limit for 
lower anchor use is not provided by the vehicle manufacturer. 
Because most vehicle manufacturers and CRS manufacturers have not 
provided a maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use, 
technicians in the field have been applying a child weight limit of 
40 lb. Thus, a 40 lb maximum child weight for lower anchor use 
represents one end of the range of current ``industry'' 
recommendations. Further, the manual used by technicians indicates 
that 42 percent of vehicle makes specifies a child weight limit of 
48 lb for lower anchor use. (A child weight of 48 lb corresponds to 
an 85th percentile 5-year-old, 60th percentile 6-year-old, and 40th 
percentile 7-year-old child by weight, according to the 2000 CDC 
growth charts (see Table 3).) The 48 lb weight represents another 
part of the range of current industry recommendations for lower 
anchorage use.
    \44\ All CRSs evaluated under NHTSA's CRS Ease-of-Use rating 
program for the years 2008-2012 were further evaluated to determine 
the maximum child weight for lower anchor use.

                          Table 3--5th, 50th, and 95th Percentile Weight and Height of Children by Age (CDC Growth Charts 2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Weight (lb)                                     Height (in)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Age                                                 50th            95th
                                                          5th percentile    percentile      percentile    5th percentile   50 percentile   95 percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................              19              22              28              28              30              32
2.......................................................              23              28              34              32              35              37
3.......................................................              28              31              39              35              38              40
4.......................................................              30              36              45              38              40              43
5.......................................................              33              41              51              40              43              46
6.......................................................              37              45              60              43              46              49
7.......................................................              41              51              68              45              48              52
8.......................................................              45              58              77              47              51              55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency found no infant carriers for which the combined 
CRS+child weight (CRS weight + maximum child weight recommended for 
infant seat) exceeded 65 lb; therefore, no infant carrier will 
currently need the label.
    Among 46 CRS convertible and 3-in-1 models which can be used in 
rear-facing mode, only 4 CRS models (8.7 percent) had a combined 
child+CRS weight (maximum child weight + CRS weight recommended for 
rear-facing mode) in excess of 65 lb, which requires a label specifying 
the maximum child weight for lower anchor use (See Table A3 in the 
Appendix to this preamble). Among these 4 CRSs, one CRS weighs 33.8 lb 
with a recommended child weight in rear-facing mode of 40 lb, and the 
remaining 3 CRSs weighed between 22.3-25.8 lb with a recommended child 
weight in rear-facing mode of 45 lb.\45\ It is unlikely that these CRSs 
will be used in rear-facing mode to the maximum recommended child 
weight of 40-45 lb since, as discussed in the next section, the child 
may get too tall to sit comfortably rear-facing or may exceed the 
height requirement before the weight limit is reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ For reference, a 50th percentile 5 year-old weighs about 40 
lb and a 50th percentile 6 year-old weighs 45 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permitting the calculated child weight limit to be a multiple of 5 
lb will result in values that will be easier for the consumer to 
understand. The agency will incorporate this label in education 
material so that consumers are aware that there is a maximum child 
weight limit for lower anchor use and to look for this information on 
the CRS.
Practical Implications
    Field data show that harness-equipped CRSs are not now being widely 
used by consumers for children weighing more than 50 lb. The agency 
analyzed data from the National Child Restraint Use Special Study 
(NCRUSS) \46\ to examine this issue. The survey data show that among 
children restrained in forward-facing harness-equipped CRSs (for both 
seat belt and lower anchor installation), 92.3 percent of the children 
weighed 40 lb or less, 5.9 percent weighed 41 to 50 lb, and only 1.5 
percent weighed more than 50 lb (see Figure 3). Data suggest that 
children are outgrowing CRSs by height rather than by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally-representative survey 
that contains both an inspection of the child passenger's restraint 
system (or lack thereof) by a certified Child Passenger Safety 
Technician (CPST) and a detailed interview of the driver conducted 
by a highly trained investigation specialist.\46\ The survey 
collected information on drivers and their child passengers 0-8 
years old between June and August 2011. National Child Restraint Use 
Special study, DOT HS 811 679, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf.

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

[[Page 10407]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.002

    Since rear-facing harness-equipped CRSs are now designed for older/
heavier children, the agency also used the NCRUSS survey to explore how 
these CRSs are used in the field. The NCRUSS survey show that 83.4 
percent of children in rear-facing convertible or all-in-one seats 
(both of which are equipped with harnesses) weighed 25 lb or less, 13.2 
percent weighed 26 to 30 lb, 3.2 percent weighed 30 to 35 lb 
(corresponding to a 50th percentile 4-year-old or 75th percentile 3-
year-old), and 0.2 percent weighed more than 35 lb. The NCRUSS survey 
also show that 85.1 percent of children in rear-facing infant seats 
weighed 25 lb (corresponding to a 50th percentile 18 month old) or 
less, 13.9 percent weighed 26 to 30 lb,\47\ and 1 percent weighed more 
than 30 lb (see Figure 4). The NCRUSS survey show that children 
weighing more than 35 lb are almost never restrained in rear-facing 
child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ A 30 lb child corresponds to a 50th percentile 3-year-old.

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

[[Page 10408]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.003

Using Seat Belts
    The petitioners state that ``the decision to adopt 65 pounds as the 
combined maximum weight . . . will unnecessarily restrict the use of 
the LATCH system and force caregivers back to using seat belts for 
anchoring forward-facing [CRSs].'' JPMA states that CRSs might not 
achieve a tight fit with a seat belt or may be too difficult to install 
with a seat belt and that parents might not know to switch to the seat 
belt during the several-year course of a CRS's use. Dorel states that 
child restraint anchorage systems are easier to use and have a higher 
rate of correct installation than seat belts, so an installation by the 
former is safer than a belt installation.
    Agency Response: These arguments are speculative and unsupported. 
Field data show a high percentage of children weighing over 40 lb 
restrained in forward-facing CRSs installed with seat belts, i.e., 
consumers are now attaching CRSs with seat belts at a high rate. The 
consumers will not be ``forced back'' to doing something different.\48\ 
Moreover, recent field data \49\ shows that most children graduate to 
booster seats when they reach approximately 40 lb, which corresponds to 
a 95th percentile 3-year-old or a 50th percentile 5-year-old. Thus, it 
appears unlikely that the label will ``force caregivers back to using 
seat belts for anchoring forward-facing'' CRSs since many children do 
not now use harness-equipped CRSs when they reach 40 lb in weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ It does not make sense to us that we should suspend the 
label because parents might not remember to switch to the seat belt 
during the course of a CRS's use, as suggested by JPMA. It seems to 
us that it makes more sense to try to instruct consumers of the 
design limits of child restraint anchorage systems so that they may 
be informed to correctly use of the systems, than to forgo informing 
them about the 65 lb limit because it is presumed that the consumer 
is unlikely to switch to the seat belt at the appropriate time.
    \49\ NCRUSS, DOT HS 811 679, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811679.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The arguments that new seat belt designs are incompatible with CRS 
installation are speculative. Views are evolving regarding the 
compatibility of new belt designs, such as inflatable seat belts, with 
CRS installation. For instance, Britax initially recommended against 
CRS installation using inflatable belts, but has changed its mind and 
now permits CRS installations with the belts. We do not have reason to 
believe that seat belts with advanced technologies cannot be designed 
to install CRSs. We also note that SAE J1819 is undergoing revisions to 
improve compatibility of seat belts and child restraint anchorages with 
CRSs.\50\ It would be premature for NHTSA to conclude that changes in 
seat belt design render installation of CRSs by seat belts unfeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1819, ``Securing 
Child Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicles.'' This SAE recommended 
practice is meant to promote compatibility between child restraint 
systems and vehicle seats and seat belts. The recommended practice 
provides design guidelines to vehicle manufacturers for certain 
characteristics of seats and seat belts, and to CRS manufacturers 
for corresponding CRS features so that each can be made more 
compatible with the other. https://standards.sae.org/wip/j1819/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Dorel's statement, NHTSA believes that the statement is 
not germane to the issue of the design limits of child restraint 
anchorage systems. If the anchorages are used in a manner that results 
in material failure because the design limits of the anchorage system 
were exceeded, the child passenger is at risk regardless of the 
relative ease of using child restraint anchorage systems or the 
tightness of the installation of CRSs on the anchorages.
Tether Anchorages
    The petitioners also state that their intent in petitioning for 
reconsideration of the rule was to ``minimize the likelihood that 
vehicle manufacturers will apply the same formula'' to tether 
anchorages. Issues relating to weight limits for the top tether 
anchorage are out of scope of this rulemaking.
Increasing the Strength of the Anchorage System
    The petitioners believe that NHTSA should require vehicle 
manufacturers to increase the strength of child restraint anchorage 
systems to accommodate a higher combined weight. This issue is out of 
scope of this rulemaking.

[[Page 10409]]

b. Other Issues

Head Excursion
    Graco requests that the 10YO test dummy only be used to test CRSs 
when the dummy fits in the seat as per the manufacturer's recommended 
usage. Graco states that it produces a harness-equipped CRS recommended 
for a 70 lb child, but limits the recommended seated height of the 
child occupant and limits the head height relative to the seat. Graco 
asks that the 10YO dummy not be used to evaluate performance of the CRS 
if the dummy exceeds the recommended limits on seating height. Graco 
believes that in the real world, the seat would not be used with a 
child of this stature, and as a result, the 10YO dummy may give 
inaccurate readings. Alternatively, Graco suggests that the dummy be 
used to evaluate CRSs to assess structural integrity, chest resultant, 
and knee excursion limits but not the head excursion requirement. Graco 
states that the head excursion measurement resulting from the use of 
the 10YO dummy would not represent the real world due to the dummy 
being significantly taller than the recommended child occupant.
Agency Response
    The agency is denying Graco's request. It is not in the public 
interest to exclude testing those CRSs recommended for children of a 
weight range represented by the 10YO dummy but whose height may be 
lower than that of the dummy.
    The agency indirectly addressed this issue in the rulemaking. In 
the 2008 SNPRM (73 FR 3908), we had considered whether FMVSS No. 213 
should expressly require that each CRS be capable of fitting the test 
dummy that is specified in S7 of the standard to evaluate the CRS. The 
agency only received comments from JPMA, which stated that child 
restraints are designed to accommodate the dummies with which they will 
be tested and that an explicit ``fit'' requirement is not required. 
After reviewing the comment, the agency decided not to pursue a fit 
requirement, assuming it was not needed because manufacturers already 
ensure that CRSs accommodate/fit the appropriate child dummies.
    Graco is now indicating that a CRS it has produced is recommended 
for children represented by the 10YO dummy weight-wise, but does not 
fit the dummy height-wise. We do not believe it would be in the 
interest of safety to exclude the CRS from testing with the 10YO dummy, 
or exclude the CRS from a performance requirement, because the CRS does 
not actually fit the dummy. We believe that a better approach would be 
to subject the CRS to testing with the dummy if the manufacturer 
recommends the CRS for use with children represented by the dummy, as 
designated by S7 of FMVSS No. 213.
    We have not been provided with any compelling information to 
exclude Graco's CRS from testing with the dummy. Graco has the option 
to lower the child weight recommendation of the CRS in question from 70 
lb to 65 lb to avoid testing with the dummy, or it could continue to 
market the CRS for children over 65 lb and ensure that the CRS meets 
the FMVSS No. 213 requirements when tested with the 10YO (such as by 
redesigning the CRS to have a harness slot that can properly 
accommodate the 10YO dummy and/or making any structural changes needed 
to ensure integrity and performance using this dummy).
Weights of the Anthropomorphic Test Devices
    The February 2012 final rule adopted a provision (S5(f)) that 
basically excludes CRSs equipped with an internal harness from FMVSS 
No. 213 while attached to the lower anchors of the child restraint 
anchorage system under certain circumstances. The circumstances are: 
The test dummy used to test the CRS is of a weight such that the 
dummy's weight plus the CRS weight exceeds 65 lb. In a March 29, 2012 
letter on this provision, Graco states that:

    [T]esting will be required with LATCH if the combined ATD and 
CRS weight is under the 65 lb limit. Therefore, the weight of the 
ATD will be important in determining what testing is required for 
any CRS. Since ATD weights vary and the addition of clothing, shoes, 
and instrumentation can add significant weight to the ATD, . . . 
[NHTSA should] publish a list of the useful weight for each ATD to 
be used for testing.

    In response, NHTSA agrees that the provision in the 2012 final rule 
implies a need for information on the test dummy weights. However, as 
Graco notes, the test dummy weights vary, and the addition of clothing, 
shoes, and instrumentation (the weights for which are not specified in 
NHTSA's regulations) can affect the ``weight'' of the test dummy and 
add undue uncertainty to the test provisions of the standard. 
Uncertainty results from variability in the weight of the dummy due to 
variances in the clothing, shoes, and instrumentation used with a 
particular dummy. We conclude that, to avoid this uncertainty, S5(f) 
should be slightly revised to move from a reference of ``a test dummy 
of a weight'' to ``the average weight of the child represented by the 
test dummy.'' The average weight of the child represented by the dummy 
can be specified in FMVSS No. 213--which NHTSA is specifying in this 
final rule \51\--and is not subject to the same degree of variation as 
the ``test dummy of a weight'' provision. Thus, we will reword S5(f) to 
exclude from lower anchor testing CRSs tested with a dummy that results 
in the combined weight of the CRS and the average weight of child 
represented by the test dummy (shown in a table in the standard) to 
exceed 65 pounds in the forward-facing mode and 65 pounds in the rear-
facing mode.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The average weight of child represented by the various test 
dummies in the table is obtained from the Centers for Disease 
Control (CDC) 2000 Growth Charts.
    \52\ Such a child restraint must meet the standard when tested 
using its internal harnesses to restrain such a test dummy while 
attached to the standard seat assembly using the belt system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the average child weight represented by the test dummy 
eliminates the variability of dummy weights due to differences in 
instrumentation and clothing. The average child weights are within the 
weight range for dummy selection specified in S7.1.2 and so would not 
change the method of testing CRSs. In addition, using the average child 
weight in the referenced table ensures that the child restraint system 
is tested using lower anchors with the test dummy closest to the 
maximum child weight limit on the label for lower anchor use.
    An example illustrating this is as follows. If a CRS weighing 19 lb 
has a label specifying 50 lb as the maximum child weight for lower 
anchor use, this CRS will be tested using the lower anchors with the 
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy. The average weight of the child 
represented by this test dummy is 45 lb.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    The agency has considered the impact of this regulatory action 
under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and the Department of Transportation's 
(DOT's) regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking action was 
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. 
This rulemaking is also not significant under DOT's regulatory policies 
and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
    This response to a petition for reconsideration mostly denies the 
petition. The few changes that are being made are minor, mostly to 
clarify a labeling requirement and to provide

[[Page 10410]]

flexibility to CRS manufacturers regarding the wording of the label. We 
estimate that today's final rule has no effect on the estimated costs 
and benefits and other economic impacts of the February 27, 2012 final 
rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires 
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final 
rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small organizations and small governmental units will not be 
significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with 
this final rule will not significantly affect the price of child 
restraints.
    This final rule denies most of the petition for reconsideration of 
the February 2012 final rule. To the extent we are amending the 
original final rule, the amendments are minor, mostly to clarify a 
labeling requirement, and adequate lead time is provided. The cost of 
revising the label is minimal.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a 
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue 
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is 
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any 
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the 
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
or equipment manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the 
express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the 
Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of 
implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by 
virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second 
way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an 
actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would 
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle or equipment manufacturers if 
someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the 
manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the 
NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS 
are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that 
seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle or equipment 
manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when 
such a conflict does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is 
both a minimum and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause 
of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor 
Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered 
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of 
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the 
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that 
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and 
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum 
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt 
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor 
vehicle or equipment manufacturers than that established by this rule. 
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not 
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any 
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common 
law tort cause of action.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there 
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they 
may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has provided a 60-day comment period (77 FR at 11645) and a 
30-day comment period (78 FR at 77554) on the collection of information 
requirement in the previous final rule.\53\ The agency asked for public 
comments on a collection of information titled, ``Consolidated Child 
Restraint System Registration, Labeling and Defect Notifications.'' OMB 
Control Number: 2127-0576. The requested expiration date of approval is 
3 years from the approval date. We requested approval of a revision to 
a currently approved collection, and for revising an existing label and 
adding a sentence to the printed instructions of certain child 
restraint systems (CRSs with internal harnesses for which the combined

[[Page 10411]]

weight of the CRS and the maximum recommended child weight for use with 
internal harness exceeds 65 lb). The added sentences will inform the 
consumer that the lower anchors of a child restraint anchorage system 
may be used up to a combined weight of child and harnessed-child 
restraint of 65 lb. The purpose of this label is to reduce consumer 
confusion about using the lower anchors and to reduce the risk that the 
lower anchors will be used in a way that is beyond the design 
limitations of the anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal 
agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the agency to provide Congress, 
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    NHTSA has reviewed available information and has determined that 
there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). This final rule would not result in the expenditure by 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector of more than $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to 
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as 
defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any 
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse 
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that 
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is 
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

    The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (P. L. 111-274) and 
Executive Order 12866 require each agency to write all rules in plain 
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes 
consideration of the following questions:

    --Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
    --Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    --Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not 
clear?
    --Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    --Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    --Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
    --What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to 
NHTSA at the ADDRESSES section in the heading of this final rule.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all material 
received into any of our dockets, including petitions for 
reconsideration of this rule (a copy of which will be placed in the 
docket), by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 
19477 at 19478).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii), 
S5.5.2(l)(3), and S5.6.1.12, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.213  Standard No. 213: Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S5 * * *
    (f) Each child restraint system that is equipped with an internal 
harness or other internal components to restrain the child need not 
meet this standard when attached to the lower anchors of the child 
restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly if the sum of 
the weight of the child restraint system (in pounds) and the average 
weight of child represented by the test dummy used to test the child 
restraint in accordance with S7 of this standard, shown in the table 
below, exceeds 65 pounds. Such a child restraint must meet this 
standard when tested using its internal harness or components to 
restrain such a test dummy while installed using the standard seat belt 
assembly specified in S5.3.2 of this standard.

   Table to S5(f)--Average Weight of Child Represented by Various Test
                                 Dummies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average weight
                                                             of child
      Test dummy (specified in S7 of this standard)       represented by
                                                            test dummy
                                                             (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRABI 12-month-old infant dummy (49 CFR Part 572,                     22
 Subpart R).............................................
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy.............................              31
(49 CFR Part 572, Subpart P)............................

[[Page 10412]]

 
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N).              45
Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted child test dummy (49 CFR               62
 Part 572 Subpart S)....................................
Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy (49, CFR Part 572, Subpart I)              45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint 
anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds, 
harnesses, and belt positioning seats, the first part of the statement 
regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is 
optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the 
statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.] 
[For child restraints manufactured from February 27, 2014 to February 
26, 2015, the following statement applies.] Child restraint systems 
equipped with internal harnesses to restrain the child and with 
components to attach to a child restraint anchorage system and for 
which the combined weight of the child restraint system and the maximum 
recommended child weight for use with internal harnesses exceeds 65 
pounds, must be labeled with the following statement: ``Do not use the 
lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to 
attach this child restraint when restraining a child weighing more than 
* [*insert a recommended weight value in English and metric units such 
that the sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the 
child restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the 
internal harnesses of the child restraint.''
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (3) A seating position equipped with a child restraint anchorage 
system. For child restraint systems manufactured on or after February 
27, 2015, the following paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (ii) apply, as 
appropriate.
    (i) If the child restraint is designed to meet the requirements of 
this standard when installed by the child restraint anchorage system 
according to S5.3.2, and if the sum of the weight of the child 
restraint and the maximum child weight recommended for the child 
restraint when used with the restraint's internal harness or components 
is greater than 65 lb when used forward-facing or rear-facing, include 
the following statement on this installation diagram: ``Do not install 
by this method for a child weighing more than *.'' At the 
manufacturer's option, ``*'' is the child weight limit in English units 
in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii). The 
corresponding child weight limit in metric units may also be included 
in the statement at the manufacturer's option.
    (A) For forward-facing and rear-facing child restraints, * is less 
than or equal to 65 minus child restraint weight (pounds).
    (B) For forward-facing child restraints, * is the child weight 
limit specified in the following table corresponding to the value CW, 
calculated as 65 minus child restraint weight (pounds).

Table to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(B)--Maximum Child Weight Limit for Lower Anchor
         Use for Forward-Facing Child Restraint System--Rounding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Child weight
         CW = 65--child restaint weight (pounds)            limit ``*''
                                                             (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 < CW <= 25...........................................              25
25 < CW <= 30...........................................              30
30 < CW <= 35...........................................              35
35 < CW <= 40...........................................              40
40 < CW <= 45...........................................              45
45 < CW <= 50...........................................              50
50 < CW <= 55...........................................              55
55 < CW <= 60...........................................              60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) For rear-facing child restraints, * is the child weight limit 
specified in the following table corresponding to the value CW, 
calculated as 60 minus child restraint weight (pounds).

Table to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(C)--Maximum Child Weight Limit for Lower Anchor
          Use for Rear-Facing Child Restraint System--Rounding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Child weight
        CW = 60--child restraint weight (pounds)            limit ``*''
                                                             (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 < CW <= 20...........................................              20
20 < CW <= 25...........................................              25
25 < CW <= 30...........................................              30
30 < CW <= 35...........................................              35
35 < CW <= 40...........................................              40
40 < CW <= 45...........................................              45
45 < CW <= 50...........................................              50
50 < CW <= 55...........................................              55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) For child restraints designed to meet the requirements of this 
standard when installed forward-facing and rear-facing by the child 
restraint anchorage system according to S5.3.2, the following applies:
    (A) If separate installation diagrams are provided for the child 
restraint installed forward-facing and rear-facing, S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) 
applies to each of the installation diagrams.
    (B) If only one installation diagram is provided and if a statement 
specifying a child weight limit is required in only rear-facing or 
forward-facing mode pursuant to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i), then the diagram shall 
depict installation in that mode along with the corresponding child 
weight limit in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i).
    (C) If a statement specifying a child weight limit is required for 
the child restraint installed forward-facing and rear-facing pursuant 
to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) and only one installation diagram is provided, then 
the child weight limit shall be in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A) 
or the lesser of the child weight limits described in 
S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(B) and (C).
* * * * *
    S5.6.1.12(a) Child restraint systems manufactured from February 27, 
2014 to February 26, 2015. The instructions for child restraint systems 
equipped with an internal harness to restrain the child and with 
components to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, and for 
which the combined weight of the child restraint system and the maximum 
recommended child weight for use with the internal harness exceeds 65 
pounds, must include the following statement: ``Do not use the lower 
anchors of the child restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to 
attach this child restraint when restraining a child weighing more than 
``*'' [*insert a recommended weight value in English and metric units 
such that the sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the 
child restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the 
internal harness of the child restraint.''
    (b) Child restraint systems manufactured on or after February 27,

[[Page 10413]]

2015. If the child restraint is designed to meet the requirements of 
this standard when installed by the child restraint anchorage system 
according to S5.3.2, the installation diagram showing the child 
restraint system installed using a child restraint anchorage system 
must meet the specifications in S5.5.2(l)(3).
* * * * *

    Issued on: February 14, 2014.
David J. Friedman,
Acting Administrator.

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Appendix to the Final Rule

[[Page 10414]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.004

[[Page 10415]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.005

[[Page 10416]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.006

[[Page 10417]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.007

[[Page 10418]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.008

[[Page 10419]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.009

[[Page 10420]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE14.010

[[Page 10421]]

[FR Doc. 2014-03984 Filed 2-20-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C