results), specifies the weight of the sliding seat at test facilities,
and makes other changes to improve the R&R of the test. Manufacturers
will need time to become familiar with the SISA as set forth in this
final rule and will need time to test their child restraints on the
SISA adopted by this final rule. The agency believes manufacturers will
seek to test their products on the SISA, and with the Q3s dummy, to
maximize the possibility that the test they use for certifying their
products aligns with the test NHTSA uses in the FMVSS No. 213a
compliance test. The agency adopted the Q3s into regulation by a final
rule only in 2020, so manufacturers will need time to acquire and test
with the dummy.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ The Q3s dummy was adopted in a final rule published on
November 3, 2020 (85 FR 69898). While the agency was developing the
final rule, the agency realized that some of the Q3s dummies that
had been delivered to CRS manufacturers and test facilities
following the publication of the 2014 NPRM did not meet the
specifications NHTSA had proposed for the dummy. The three-year lead
time provides time to CRS manufacturers that had tested with those
out-of-spec dummies to acquire dummies that meet the necessary
qualifications, and reassess their CRSs as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as shown in NHTSA's 2017 testing of CRSs on the SISA
adopted by this final rule, most of the child restraints tested then
did not meet the FMVSS No. 213a performance criteria. These data
indicate a need for CRSs to be re-engineered and reassessed in their
use of side wings, padding and other countermeasures in providing side
impact protection. Further, this final rule specifies that CRSs will
also have to be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213a when attached by a
Type 2 (lap/shoulder seat belt) in addition to the CRAS. Manufacturers
will need time to assess the performance of their CRSs when attached to
the SISA by way of the belt system, and redesign their restraints with
compliant countermeasures as appropriate.
    Lastly, NHTSA has a number of ongoing rulemakings mandated by MAP-
21 for child restraints. In addition to this final rule, as noted
throughout this document MAP-21 directed NHTSA to update the seat
assembly used in the frontal crash test of FMVSS No. 213. MAP-21 also
directed NHTSA to undertake rulemaking to improve the ease of use of
CRAS.\286\ A three-year lead time provides time to manufacturers to
adjust their manufacturing processes to respond to regulatory changes
made by these actions and redesign CRS models, to the extent possible,
within their design cycle to minimize the cost impacts on consumers.
For the reasons explained above, NHTSA finds good cause to have an
effective date of three years following the date of publication in the
Federal Register.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ MAP-21, Section 31502. NHTSA published an NPRM on January
23, 2015 (80 FR 3744). The RIN for the rulemaking is 2127-AL20. It
may be tracked in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions.
    \287\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Regulatory Notices anD Analyses

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

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory procedures. This rulemaking is considered ``significant''
and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This final rule amends FMVSS
No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for child
restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18.1 kg (40 lb). The requirements are set forth
in FMVSS No. 213a, which specifies that the child restraints meet the
requirements in a dynamic test simulating a vehicle-to-vehicle side
impact. The side impact test of FMVSS No. 213a is additional to the
current frontal impact tests of FMVSS No. 213.
    NHTSA has prepared a final regulatory impact analysis (FRIA) that
assesses the cost and benefits of this final rule.\288\ The FRIA
follows a preliminary RIA (PRIA) that was issued in support of the
NPRM. The PRIA evaluated the countermeasures the agency tentatively
determined may be needed for CRSs to meet the proposed performance
requirements, and the benefits of those changes to the target
population (children restrained in a CRS in a side impact). At the time
of the PRIA, NHTSA believed that CRS manufacturers were already
designing CRSs to address side impacts, and that generally only minor
changes in design for forward- and rear-facing child restraints would
be needed to enable child restraints to pass the test proposed in the
NPRM. NHTSA tentatively determined that adding energy-absorbing padding
to the CRS around the head area of the child and to the side structures
(CRS side ``wings'') would likely be sufficient for CRSs to meet the
proposed requirements. Accordingly, NHTSA estimated the costs and
benefits of adding such padding to CRSs and requested comment on the
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ The FRIA discusses issues relating to the estimated cost,
benefits, and other impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is
available in the docket for this final rule and may be obtained by
downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or
telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRIA determined that the rule would be cost beneficial. NHTSA
estimated that adding padding to the head area and wings of the CRS
would reduce the likelihood of injuries by 3.7 fatalities and 41
injuries when all child restraints sold on the market met the proposed
test criteria limits. These impacts would accrue to an economic benefit
of $168.97 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $152.16 million at
a 7 percent discount rate. NHTSA estimated the cost of the proposed
rule

at about $7.37 million, with $830,123 of that attributed to the cost of
testing all child restraint models. The countermeasures were estimated
to be larger wings (side structure) and padding with energy-absorption
characteristics that would have a retail cost of approximately $0.58
per CRS.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ The agency believed that the cost of a compliance test
(estimated at $1,300) spread over the number of units sold of that
child restraint model was very small, especially when compared to
the price of a child restraint. We estimated that 127 CRS models
comprised the 11.3 million CRSs sold annually for children weighing
up to 40 lb, which have an average model life of 5 years. Therefore,
the annual cost of testing new CRS models was estimated to be
$830,123. This testing cost, distributed among the 11.3 million CRSs
sold annually, amounted to less than $0.01 per CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    As discussed at the beginning of this document, most of the
comments supported the rulemaking proposal but a few did not. Comments
in opposition or expressing concerns (from Dr. Baer, UMTRI and IIHS),
were discussed at length in Section V of this preamble, as was NHTSA's
response to those comments, and will not be repeated here. Several
other individuals did not favor the proposal. Mr. Michael Montalbano
expressed concern about the assumptions NHTSA used for the cost benefit
analysis, stating that the NPRM indicated that 45 percent of child
fatalities ``occurred where the child was not wearing [sic] a CRS'' and
that side crashes resulting in fatalities to children in CRSs mainly
occur in very severe, un-survivable side impact conditions. Mr.
Montalbano asked: ``Will these side impact requirements be effective
given that nearly half of child fatalities occur when CRSs are not
used, and when CRSs are used, most children die from un-survivable side
impact conditions?'' Conversely, a law student group stated that ``even
though the benefits are not extreme, the benefits still outweigh the
comparatively small costs associated with this additional testing.''
    In response to Mr. Montalbano, NHTSA's cost benefit analysis
assumes that children who do not use CRSs will not benefit from this
rulemaking, as the standard applies to the CRS products, and does not
require their use. However, as discussed previously, NHTSA is actively
involved in increasing the use of CRSs and the correct use of restraint
systems through other efforts. These efforts include developing and
distributing training videos, producing public safety announcements and
various campaigns directed to caregivers of children (in English,
Spanish and other languages), leveraging all communication resources
(such as social media and the NHTSA website) to provide information to
parents and other caregivers, and expanding and supporting the child
passenger safety technician (CPST) curriculum used to train and certify
CRS fitting station technicians. Also, while this rulemaking does not
directly address the 45 percent of fatalities that occur in very
severe, un-survivable crashes, there may be some circumstances where a
child might benefit from a CRS equipped with side impact protection by
reducing the severity of the injuries in a severe crash.
    UMTRI stated that costs involving the purchase of the Q3s ATD, new
instrumentation (IR-TRACC) and buck manufacturing should be included in
cost estimates as this adds to the yearly cost of testing. NHTSA
conducted an analysis \290\ to evaluate the annual cost of owning,
operating, and maintaining the equipment and test devices needed for
conducting the required tests and found that they would be very small
when the costs are spread over the expected lifetime of these equipment
and test devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ See the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for more
details on the analysis. The FRIA is available in the docket for
this final rule and may be obtained by downloading it or by
contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number
provided at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dorel stated its concern about a potential overlapping of a side
impact rulemaking with the new FMVSS No. 213 on frontal impact
protection, and the cost impacts of having to produce CRSs to rules
that are introduced at different times. Dorel explained that it would
need to evaluate the costs of a side impact test along any new proposed
frontal impact test in conjunction with a new side impact test to fully
comment on a cost analysis, and that without testing data of both side
impact and frontal impact tests it could only estimate in broad terms
at that time. Dorel added that in terms of redesign, retooling, and
manufacturing startup costs, such an undertaking can range from product
modification to product obsolescence. Dorel explained that a single
ground up project of a single platform for a single set of tooling can
range anywhere from $1.5-$2.5 million and that multiples of tooling can
range $500 thousand upward to $1.5 million depending on the type and
design of CRS. Dorel added that manufacturers would have to increase
resources in a very short time and that typical development times from
start to production in mass quantity could range from 18-24 months.
Dorel argued that this could pose a major disruption of supply meeting
customer demand, and that it prefers a synchronization of both
standards so as to afford the design and development process and costs
to consolidate to meet both new regulations.
    In response to Dorel, we note that both this side impact final rule
and a final rule upgrading the frontal impact seat assembly of FMVSS
No. 213 (see NPRM, 85 FR 69388) are mandated by MAP-21. Nonetheless,
while we believe the new side impact requirements adopted in this final
rule will result in design changes to the CRS designs, NHTSA does not
believe that the frontal impact changes will necessitate extensive CRS
design changes as it appears most CRSs already meet the proposed rule's
substantive requirements. (Some labeling changes may be needed.)
Further, once NHTSA knows the timing of the frontal upgrade final rule,
NHTSA will keep Dorel's concerns in mind to see if adjusting lead times
would be appropriate and consistent with the Safety Act.
    In developing the 2014 NPRM, NHTSA considered HIC15 requirements of
400 and 800 as alternatives to the preferred proposal of HIC15 of 570.
The PRIA for the NPRM provided an assessment of benefits and costs of
the HIC15 of 400 and 800 alternatives. Of the alternatives presented
for HIC15, NHTSA has decided in this final rule on its preferred
alternative of 570. This threshold value achieves a reasonable balance
of practicability, safety, and cost. The HIC15 threshold of 570 is used
in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' for the 3-year-old
child dummy. It is a scaled threshold based on FMVSS No. 208's
criterion for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, which was adjusted
to the 3-year-old using a process that accounts for differences in
geometric size and material strength. HIC15 of 570 corresponds to an 11
percent risk of AIS 3+ injury and a 1.6 percent risk of fatality. The
570 scaled maximum will protect children in child restraints from an
unreasonable risk of fatality and serious injury in side impacts.
    Comparing the three alternatives (at the 7 percent discount rate),
an 800 HIC15 limit results in: (a) many fewer equivalent lives saved
than the 570 HIC15 limit (7.24 vs. 18.26); (b) higher cost per
equivalent life saved ($488,000 vs. $242,000); and, (c) lower net
benefits ($63 million vs. $162 million). Thus, on all three measures,
800 HIC15 achieves fewer NHTSA goals as compared to the 570 HIC15.
    The 400 HIC15 alternative results in: (a) more equivalent lives
saved than the 570 HIC15 limit (28.87 vs. 18.26); higher cost per
equivalent life saved ($314,000 vs. $242,000); and, (c) higher net

benefits ($250 million vs. $162 million). Thus, on two of the three
measures, at first glance 400 HIC15 has appeal compared to the 570
HIC15 limit.
    However, NHTSA is concerned about the effect of a 400 HIC15 limit
on child restraint design and use and did not have information to
address those concerns sufficiently. The agency is concerned that the
cost estimates utilized may not take into account changes necessary to
meet the 400 HIC15 limit. We believe that padding alone would be
insufficient to meet a 400 HIC15 limit, and that a structural
improvement to the side of the seats would be needed in addition to
padding. We did not receive data on which to determine what structural
or other changes would be needed to meet a 400 HIC15 reference, or
whether the structural modifications can be implemented to meet the 400
HIC15 criterion at the cost we assumed.
    Moreover, NHTSA is concerned that one method of potential
compliance with a 400 HIC15 limit could cause unintended negative
consequences not assessed in our estimate of costs. We believe that
manufacturers could possibly increase padding to meet a 400 HIC15
limit. Thicker padding around the head area could reduce the space
provided for the child's head, which may make the child restraint
uncomfortable and confining for the child. The restricted space for the
child's head could reduce the ability of the seated child to move his
or her head freely, which could affect acceptability and use of the
harness-equipped age-appropriate child restraints. Alternatively, if
manufacturers decided to increase the thickness of the padding in the
head area and widen the CRS to retain the current space between the
child's head and side padding, the child restraint would have to be
made wider and heavier. Again, this might affect the overall use of the
child restraint. Considering all of these factors, NHTSA has chosen 570
HIC15 as the best overall reference value with known consequences that
can be met with a reasonable thickness of padding alone.
    This final rule reduces 3.7 fatalities and 41 (40.9) serious non-
fatal injuries (MAIS \291\ 4-5) annually (see Table 26 below).\292\ The
equivalent lives and the monetized benefits were estimated in
accordance with guidance issued March 2021 by the Office of the
Secretary \293\ regarding the treatment of value of a statistical life
in regulatory analyses. This final rule is estimated to save 15.1
equivalent lives annually. The monetized annual benefits of the rule at
3 and 7 percent discount rates are $169.0 million and $152.1 million,
respectively (Table 27). The annual cost of this final rule is
estimated at approximately $7.37 million. The countermeasures may
include larger wings and padding with energy absorption characteristics
that cost, on average, approximately $0.58 per CRS designed for
children in a weight range that includes weights up to 40 lb (both
forward-facing and rear-facing) (Table 28 below). The annual net
benefits are estimated to be $144.8 million (7 percent discount rate)
to $161.6 million (3 percent discount rate) as shown in Table 29.
Because the rule is cost beneficial just by comparing costs to
monetized economic benefits, and there is a net benefit, it is
unnecessary to provide a net cost per equivalent life saved since no
value would be provided by such an estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale) represents the
maximum injury severity of an occupant based on the Abbreviated
Injury Scale (AIS). AIS ranks individual injuries by body region on
a scale of 1 to 6: 1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe,
5=critical, and 6=maximum (untreatable). MAIS 3+ injuries represent
MAIS injuries at an AIS level of 3, 4, 5, or 6.
    \292\ NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(FRIA) that discusses issues relating to the estimated costs,
benefits, and other impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is
available in the docket for this final rule and may be obtained by
downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or
telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.
    \293\ http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf

                      Table 26--Estimated Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities..............................................             3.7
Non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1 to 5)........................       41 (40.9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 27--Estimated Monetized Benefits
                                          [In millions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Value  of
                                                                     Economic       statistical   Total benefits
                                                                     benefits          life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate.........................................          $26.24         $142.72         $168.97
7 Percent Discount Rate.........................................           23.63          128.53          152.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table 28--Estimated Costs (2020 Economics)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost per CRS designed for children in a weight             $0.58
 range that includes weights up to 40 lb................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total incremental CRS cost..........................    6.54 million
Testing costs...........................................         830,123
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total annual cost...................................    7.37 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 29--Annualized Costs and Benefits
                                          [In millions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annualized      Annualized
                                                                       costs         benefits      Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate................................................           $7.37         $168.97         $161.60
7% Discount Rate................................................            7.37          152.16          144.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head
of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also
provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification.
    I certify that this final rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA
estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of
which are small businesses. Based on our fleet testing, we believe that
most of the CRSs that are subject to the side impact requirements will
meet the requirements without substantial modification. For rear-facing
infant seats and forward-facing restraints with harnesses that need to
be modified, the agency estimates that the average incremental costs to
each child restraint system would be only $0.58 per unit to meet this
final rule. This incremental cost will not constitute a significant
economic impact. Further, the incremental cost is not significant
compared to the retail price of a child restraint system for infants
and toddlers, which is in the range of $45 to $350.
    For belt-positioning seats that will not be able to meet the side
impact requirements adopted by this final rule, the simplest course for
a manufacturer will be to re-label the restraint prior to introduction
into interstate commerce so that it is marketed for children not in a
weight class that will subject the CRS to the rule's requirements. That
is, the CRSs could be marketed as belt-positioning seats for children
weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb), instead of for children weighing
above 13.6 kg (30 lb).\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ Currently, FMVSS No. 213 prohibits manufacturers from
recommending belt-positioning seats for children weighing less than
13.6 kg (30 lb). NHTSA has proposed increasing this weight limit to
18.1 kg (40 lb) (85 FR 69388). If adopted, the weight threshold
would also have the effect of excluding booster seats from the
application of FMVSS No. 213a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that the cost of conducting the test described
in this final rule (estimated at $1,543) spread over the number of
units sold of that child restraint model will be very small, especially
when compared to the price of a child restraint. We estimate that 127
CRS models comprise the 11.3 million CRSs that include recommended
weights for children weighing up to 40 pounds. The average model life
is estimated to be 5 years. Therefore, we estimate that, assuming
manufacturers will be conducting the dynamic test specified in this
final rule to certify their child restraints to the new side impact
requirements, the annual cost of testing new CRS models will be
$830,123. This testing cost, distributed among the 11.3 million CRSs
sold annually with an average model life of 5 years, will be less than
$0.01 per CRS.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988,

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

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. There are no ``collections of
information'' (as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)) in this final rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    As explained above in this preamble and in the January 28, 2014
NPRM preceding this final rule, NHTSA reviewed the procedures and
regulations developed globally to dynamically test child restraints in
the side impact environment. Except for the Takata test procedure, the
procedures and regulations did not replicate all of the dynamic
elements of a side crash that we sought to include in the side impact
test, or were not sufficiently developed for further consideration.
    NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213
but did not find it acceptable. The test does not simulate an intruding
door, which is an important component in the side impact environment.
In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not account for a longitudinal component,
which we also believe is an important characteristic of a side crash.
(As noted above, NHTSA's 2002 ANPRM, supra, was based on AS/NZS 1754.
Commenters to the ANPRM believed that a dynamic test should account for
some degree of vehicle intrusion into the occupant compartment.)
Australia's CREP test also was limited by its lack of an intruding
door, which is a component that is important in the side impact
environment.
    Test procedures from other countries and entities were also too
limited. Germany's ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. While
the ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and intrusion
experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its limitations is
that the angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control,
which results in poor repeatability. In addition, these methods do not
include a longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which
is present in most side impacts and which NHTSA sought to replicate in
the FMVSS No. 213a test. NHTSA considered the EU's test procedure but
decided not to pursue it, since the test is of lower severity than the
crash conditions the agency sought to replicate and of lower severity
than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test of a small passenger
vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only intended for evaluating
CRSs with rigid ISOFIX attachments, which are not prevalent in the U.S.
Further, the sliding anchors do not seem to produce a representative
interaction between the door and CRS during a side impact, and may
introduce variability in the test results.
    NPACS completed a test procedure in 2006. The NPACS final approach
is comparable to the International Standards Organization (ISO) side
impact efforts which include a rotating hinged door to simulate door
intrusion into the CRS. As discussed in the NPRM, the rotating hinged
door procedures account for the deceleration and intrusion experienced
by a car in a side impact crash but one of its limitations is that the
angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control resulting
in poor repeatability.\295\ In addition, these methods do not include a
longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which is present
in most side impact crashes. The NPACS procedure also specifies a sled
velocity change corridor with a longer duration than desired. NHTSA
found that for a small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 MDB test, the change in
velocity duration was between 40-50 milliseconds, while NPACS has a
duration of 70-75 milliseconds. While the agency did not evaluate these
procedures, the agency did not find them compelling enough to pursue or
change from the selected Takata sled-on-sled method, which has proven
to be repeatable and reproducible and can be adapted to be done in an
acceleration type or a deceleration type sled system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ Sandner, V., Ratzek, A., Kolke, R., Kraus, W., Lang, M.
``New Programm for the assessment of child restraint systems
(NPACS)--Development/research/results--First step for future
activities?'' Paper Number 09-0298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA based the side impact test on a test procedure that was
developed in the industry. In so doing, NHTSA saved agency resources by
making use of pertinent technical information that was already
available. This effort to save resources is consistent with the NTTAA's
goal of reducing when possible the agency's cost of developing its own
standards.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2020
results in $158 million (113.635/71.868 = 1.581). This final rule does
not result in a cost of $158 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:

    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by

U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases,
the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies
and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and
might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that
are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in
the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory
cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.

    NHTSA requested public comment on the ``regulatory approaches taken
by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking but received no comments on this issue. In the discussion
above on the NTTAA, we explained that we reviewed the procedures and
regulations developed globally to test child restraints dynamically in
the side impact environment and found the Takata test procedure to be
the most suitable for our purposes.

Incorporation by Reference

    Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1
CFR 51.5(a)), an agency, as part of a final rule that includes material
incorporated by reference, must summarize in the preamble of the final
rule the material it incorporates by reference and discuss the ways the
material is reasonably available to interested parties or how the
agency worked to make materials available to interested parties.
    In this final rule, NHTSA incorporates by reference material
entitled, ``Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly;
FMVSS No. 213a--Side impact No. NHTSA-213a-2021, CHILD SIDE IMPACT
SLED,'' dated December 2021, that consists of engineering drawings and
specifications for the side impact seat assembly (SISA) that NHTSA will
use to assess the compliance of child restraints with Standard No.
213a. The SISA consists of a sliding seat, with one seating position,
and a simulated door assembly.
    NHTSA has placed a copy of the material in the docket for this
final rule. Interested persons can download a copy of the material or
view the material online by accessing www.Regulations.gov, telephone 1-
877-378-5457, or by contacting NHTSA's Chief Counsel's Office at the
phone number and address set forth in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
section of this document. The material is also available for inspection
at the Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
This final rule also incorporates SAE Recommended Practice J211/1,
revised March 1995, ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests-Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation,'' This SAE standard is already incorporated
in 49 CFR 571.5(l)(4). The SAE J211/1 standard provides guidelines and
recommendations for techniques of measurements used in impact tests to
achieve uniformity in instrumentation practice and in reporting
results. Signals from impact tests have to be filtered following the
standard's guidelines to eliminate noise from sensor signals. Following
J211/1 guidelines provides a basis for meaningful comparisons of test
results from different sources. The SAE material is available for
review at NHTSA and is available for purchase from SAE International.

Formatting

    Note: Due to new Federal Register formatting guidelines, the
``figure number and title'' labels in the regulatory text now appear
directly above the corresponding figure instead of below the
corresponding figure.

Regulation Identifier Number

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

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires;
Incorporation by reference.

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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 571.5 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b; Adding paragraph (k)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (l)(4); and
0
d. In addition to the previous amendments, remove the text ``http://''
and add in its place the text ``https://'' wherever it appears
throughout this section.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in this section, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) must publish a document in the Federal
Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved
incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection
at NHTSA and at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). Contact NHTSA at: NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>, website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa/electronic-reading-room. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs of this
section.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) ``Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS
No. 213a--Side impact No. NHTSA-213a-2021, CHILD SIDE IMPACT SLED''
dated December 2021; into Sec.  571.213a.
    (l) * * *
    (4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, ``Instrumentation for Impact
Tests-

Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation''; revised March 1995; into
Sec. Sec.  571.202a; 571.208; 571.213a; 571.218; 571.403.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.213 is amended by adding paragraph S5(g) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    S5 * * *
    (g) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds), or for children in a
height range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters, shall meet
the requirements in this standard and the additional side impact
protection requirements in Standard No. 213a (Sec.  571.213a). Excepted
from Standard No. 213a are harnesses and car beds.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 571.213a is added to read as follows:

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

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies side impact protection
requirements for child restraint systems recommended for children in a
weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) or by
children in a height range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters
(43 inches).
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number
of children killed or injured in motor vehicle side impacts. Each child
restraint system subject to this standard shall also meet all
applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.  571.213).
    S3. Application. This standard applies to add-on child restraint
systems that are either recommended for use by children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) regardless
of height, or by children in a height range that includes heights up to
1100 millimeters regardless of weight, except for car beds and
harnesses.
    S4. Definitions.
    Add-on child restraint system means any portable child restraint
system.
    Belt-positioning seat means a child restraint system that positions
a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt
system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system
or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the
child's torso in a forward impact.
    Car bed means a child restraint system designed to restrain or
position a child in the supine or prone position on a continuous flat
surface.
    Child restraint anchorage system is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225
(Sec.  571.225).
    Child restraint system is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.
571.213).
    Contactable surface means any child restraint system surface (other
than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may
contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy,
specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance
with S6.1.
    Harness means a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint
system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps,
webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating
structure for the child.
    Rear-facing child restraint system means a child restraint system
that positions a child to face in the direction opposite to the normal
(forward) direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
    Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal line
through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1 to Sec.  571.213a.
    Tether anchorage is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec.  571.225).
    Tether strap is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec.  571.225).
    Torso means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic
test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the
child restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of
the test dummy.
    S5. Requirements. (a) Each child restraint system subject to this
section shall meet the requirements in this section when, as specified,
tested in accordance with S6 and this paragraph. Each child restraint
system shall meet the requirements when oriented in each direction
recommended by the manufacturer (i.e., forward, rearward), using any of
the seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing
positions designated for that direction, pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS No.
213 (Sec.  571.213), and tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of
this section.
    (b) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall also
meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.  571.213).
    S5.1 Dynamic performance.
    S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) With any padding or other flexible overlay material removed,
exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element
and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of
less than 6 millimeters or surfaces with protrusions greater than 9
millimeters above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable
surface of any structural element of the child restraint system.
    (b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same
adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately
before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2).
    (2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), a rear-facing child
restraint system may have a means for repositioning the seating surface
of the system that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined
position to an upright position and back to a reclined position during
testing.
    (ii) No opening that is exposed and is larger than 6 millimeters
before the testing shall become smaller during the testing as a result
of the movement of the seating surface relative to the child restraint
system as a whole.
    (c) If a front facing child restraint system, not allow the angle
between the system's back support surfaces for the child and the
system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion
of the test.
    S5.1.2 Injury criteria. When tested in accordance with S6.1 and
with the test dummy specified in S7, each child restraint system that,
in accordance with S5.5.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), is
recommended for use by children whose mass is more than 13.6 kilograms
or whose height is more than 870 mm shall--
    (a) Limit the resultant acceleration at the location of the
accelerometer mounted in the test dummy head as specified in Part 572
such that, for any two points in time, t1 and t2, during the event
which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time interval and
where t1 is less than t2, the maximum calculated head injury criterion
(HIC) shall not exceed 570, determined using the resultant head
acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head, ar,
expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), calculated
using the expression:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.017

    (b) The maximum chest compression (or deflection) from the output
of the thoracic InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest
Compression (IR-TRACC) shall not exceed 23 millimeters.
    S5.1.3 Occupant containment. When tested in accordance with S6.1
and the requirements specified in this section, each child restraint
system recommended for use by children in a specified mass range that
includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kilograms but not
greater than 13.6 kilograms (30 lb), shall retain the test dummy's head
such that there is no direct contact of the head to any part of the
side impact seat assembly described in S6.1.1(a).
    S5.1.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural
component within or underlying a contactable surface shall, with any
padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above
any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 9
millimeters and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 6
millimeters.
    S5.1.5 Belt buckle release. Any buckle in a child restraint system
belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall:
    (a) When tested in accordance with the appropriate sections of
S6.2, after the dynamic test of S6.1, release when a force of not more
than 71 Newtons is applied.
    (b) Not release during the testing specified in S6.1.
    S5.1.6  Installation. Each add-on child restraint system shall be
capable of meeting the requirements of this standard when installed
solely by each of the means indicated in the following table:

                                                                    Table 1 to S5.1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Means of installation
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Lower anchorages of
            Type of add-on child restraint system                                      Type II seat belt     Lower anchorages of    the child restraint
                                                                Type II seat belt       assembly plus a      the child restraint      anchorage system
                                                                     assembly           tether if needed       anchorage system      plus a tether  if
                                                                                needed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear-facing restraints......................................                     X   .....................                     X   .....................
Forward-facing restraints...................................  .....................                     X   .....................                     X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S6. Test conditions and procedures.
    S6.1 Dynamic side impact test for child restraint systems. The test
conditions and test procedure for the dynamic side impact test are
specified in S6.1.1 and S6.1.2, respectively.
    S6.1.1 Test conditions.
    (a) Test device. (1) The test device is a side impact seat assembly
(SISA) consisting of a sliding seat, with one seating position, and a
simulated door assembly as described in ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly;
FMVSS No. 213a--Side impact No. NHTSA-213a-2021'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  571.5). The simulated door assembly is rigidly
attached to the floor of the SISA and the sliding seat is mounted on
rails to allow it to move relative to the floor of the SISA in the
direction perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA is mounted on a dynamic
test platform so that the SORL of the seat is 10 +/-0.1 degrees from
the perpendicular direction of the test platform travel.
    (2) As illustrated in the SISA drawing package, attached to the
seat belt anchorage points provided on the SISA is a Type II seat belt
assembly. These seat belt assemblies are certified to meet the
requirements of Standard No. 209 (Sec.  571.209) and have webbing with
a width of not more than 2 inches, and are attached to the anchorage
points without the use of retractors or reels of any kind. As
illustrated in the SISA drawing package, attached to the SISA is a
child restraint anchorage system conforming to the specifications of
Standard No. 225 (Sec.  571.225).
    (b) Accelerate the test platform to achieve a relative velocity of
31.3  0.64 km/h in the direction perpendicular to the SORL
between the SISA sliding seat and the door assembly at the time they
come in contact (time = T0). The front face of the armrest
on the door is 38  6 millimeters from the edge of the seat
towards the SORL at time = T0. The test platform velocity in
the direction perpendicular to the SORL during the time of interaction
of the door with the child restraint system is no lower than 2.5 km/h
less than its velocity at time = T0.
    (c) The sliding seat acceleration perpendicular to the SORL is any
pulse within the acceleration corridor shown in Figure 3 and the change
in relative velocity perpendicular to the SORL between the SISA sliding
seat and the door assembly is any velocity within the relative velocity
corridor shown in Figure 4.
    (d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient
temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
    (e) The child restraint shall meet the requirements of S5 when
oriented in each direction recommended by the manufacturer (i.e.,
forward, rearward), using any of the seat back angle adjustment
positions and restraint belt routing positions designated for that
direction, pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), and
tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of this section.
    S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.
    (a) The child restraint centerline is positioned 300  2
millimeters from the SISA sliding seat edge (impact side). The child
restraint system is attached in any of the following manners, at
NHTSA's option.
    (1) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard
No. 213 (Sec.  571.213),

except as provided in this paragraph. For forward-facing restraints,
attach the tether strap, if provided, to the tether anchorage on the
SISA. No supplemental device is used to install the child restraint
system. Tighten belt systems of the lower anchorage attachments used to
attach the restraint to the SISA sliding seat to any tension of not
less than 53.5 Newtons and not more than 67 Newtons. Tighten the belt
of the top tether attachment used to attach the restraint to the SISA
sliding seat to any tension of not less than 45 Newtons and not more
than 53.5 Newtons.
    (2) For forward-facing and rear-facing child restraint systems,
install the child restraint system using the Type II belt system in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the child
restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213),
except as provided in this paragraph. For forward-facing restraints,
attach the top tether strap, if provided, to the top tether anchorage
on the SISA. For all child restraints, no supplemental device to
install the child restraint system is used. Tighten the Type II belt
used to attach the restraint to the SISA sliding seat to any tension of
not less than 53.5 Newtons and not more than 67 Newtons. Tighten the
belt of the top tether attachment used to attach the forward-facing
restraint to the SISA sliding seat to any tension of not less than 45
Newtons and not more than 53.5 Newtons. Rear-facing infant carriers
with a detachable base shall only be tested using the base.
    (3) For rear-facing restraints, install the child restraint system
using only the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213). No tether strap is used. No supplemental device is used to
install the child restraint system. Tighten belt systems used to attach
the restraint to the SISA-sliding seat to any tension of not less than
53.5 Newtons and not more than 67 Newtons. Rear-facing infant carriers
with a detachable base shall only be tested using the base.
    (b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing child restraint
systems for use by children of the heights or weights for which the
system is recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213
(Sec.  571.213). The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared as
specified in S8 and part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.
    (c) The dummy is placed and positioned in the child restraint
system as specified in S9. Attach the child restraint belts used to
restrain the child within the system, if appropriate, as specified in
S9.
    (d) Shoulder and pelvic belts that directly restrain the dummy are
adjusted as follows: Tighten the belt system used to restrain the child
within the child restraint system to any tension of not less than 9
Newtons and not more than 18 Newtons on the webbing at the top of each
dummy shoulder and the pelvic region. Tighten the belt systems used to
attach the restraint to the SISA sliding seat to any tension of not
less than 53.5 Newtons and not more than 67 Newtons.
    (e) Accelerate the test platform in accordance with S6.1.1(b).
    (f) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with
SAE J211/1 (1995) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5).
    S6.2 Buckle release test procedure.
    (a) After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and before
the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each wrist and
ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 to
Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), without disturbing the belted dummy
and the child restraint system.
    (b) Pull the sling that is tied to the dummy restrained in the
child restraint system and apply the following force: 90 Newtons for a
system tested with a 12-month-old dummy; 200 Newtons for a system
tested with a 3-year-old dummy. For an add-on child restraint, the
force is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 to Standard No.
213 (Sec.  571.213) and by pulling the sling horizontally and parallel
to the SORL of the SISA.
    (c) While applying the force specified in S6.2(b), and using the
device shown in Figure 8 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213) for
pushbutton-release buckles, apply the release force in the manner and
location specified in S6.2.1 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), for
that type of buckle. Measure the force required to release the buckle.
    S7 Test dummies.
    S7.1 Dummy selection. At NHTSA's option, any dummy specified in
S7.1(a) or S7.1(b) may be selected for testing child restraint systems
for use by children of the height or mass for which the system is
recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213). A child restraint that meets the criteria in two or more of
the following paragraphs may be tested with any of the test dummies
specified in those paragraphs.
    (a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 5 kilograms but not greater than 13.6 kilograms, or
by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 650 millimeters but not greater than 870
millimeters, is tested with a CRABI 12-month-old test dummy conforming
to 49 CFR part 572 subpart R.
    (b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 13.6 kilograms but not greater than 18 kilograms,
or by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 870 millimeters but not greater than 1100
millimeters, is tested with a 3-year-old test dummy (Q3s) conforming to
49 CFR part 572 subpart W.
    S8 Dummy clothing and preparation.
    S8.1 Type of clothing.
    (a) 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR part 572, subpart R). When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part
572, subpart R, is clothed in a cotton-polyester based tight fitting
sweat shirt with long sleeves and ankle long pants whose combined
weight is not more than 0.25 kilograms.
    (b) 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR part 572, subpart
W). When used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49
CFR part 572, subpart W, is clothed as specified in that subpart,
except without shoes.
    S8.2 Preparing dummies. When using the Q3s dummy, install the IR-
TRACC on the test impact side according to 49 CFR part 572, subpart W.
Before being used in testing under this standard, test dummies must be
conditioned at any ambient temperature from 20.6[deg] to 22.2 [deg]C
and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at
least 4 hours.
    S9 Positioning the dummy and attaching the belts used to restrain
the child within the child restraint system and/or to attach the system
to the SISA sliding seat.
    S9.1 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR part 572, subpart R).
Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child
positioning that the manufacturer provided with the child restraint
system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213),
while conforming to the following:
    (a) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the 12-
month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the
dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the

system. Attach all appropriate child restraint belts used to restrain
the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2 of this standard. Attach all appropriate belts used
to attach the child restraint system to the SISA sliding seat and
tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
    (b) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the
dummy's arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm downward
toward the dummy's lower body until the arm contacts a surface of the
child restraint system or the SISA. Ensure that no arm is restrained
from movement in other than the downward direction, by any part of the
system or the belts used to anchor the system to the SISA sliding seat.
    (c) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the
arms of the 12-month-old test dummy as far as possible in the upward
vertical direction. Extend the legs of the test dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat square
surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of 178 Newtons,
perpendicular to the plane of the back of the standard seat assembly,
first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the
midsagittal plane of the dummy. Attach all appropriate child restraint
belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and
tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts
used to attach the child restraint system (per S5.1.6) to the SISA
sliding seat and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c), rotate each dummy
limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane
until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the
standard seat assembly. Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb
placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in tests conducted
under S6.
    S9.2 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR part 572, subpart
W) in forward-facing child restraints. Position the test dummy
according to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint
manufacturer provided with the child restraint system in accordance
with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), while
conforming to the following:
    (a) Holding the test dummy torso upright until it contacts the
child restraint system's design seating surface, place the test dummy
in the seated position within the child restraint system with the
midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of
the child restraint system.
    (b) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the
upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
    (c) For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface,
position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that
the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213
(Sec.  571.213). For forward-facing restraints, attach all appropriate
child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child
restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all
appropriate belts or lower anchorage attachments used to attach the
child restraint system to the SISA or to restrain the child and tighten
them as specified in S6.1.2. For belt-positioning seats, attach all
appropriate vehicle belts used to restrain the child within the child
restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d).
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the
child restraint or the SISA. Rotate each of the dummy's arms downwards
in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm is
engaged on the detent that positions the arm at a 25 degree angle with
respect to the thorax.
    S9.3 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR part 572, subpart
W) in rear-facing child restraints. Position the test dummy according
to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint
manufacturer provided with the child restraint system in accordance
with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), while
conforming to the following:
    (a) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the
upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
    (b) Place the Q3s dummy in the child restraint system so that the
back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the
system. Place the test dummy in the child restraint system with the
midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of
the child restraint system. Rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards
in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the leg or
feet of the dummy contacts the seat back of the SISA or a surface of
the child restraint system.
    (c) For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface,
position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that
the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213
(Sec.  571.213). Attach all appropriate child restraint belts used to
restrain a child within the child restraint system and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts or lower anchorage
attachments used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA and
tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's
midsagittal plane until the limb is positioned at a 25-degree angle
with respect to the thorax.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.026

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-13658 Filed 6-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C