[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11626-11651]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4134]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 38

February 27, 2012

Part II

Department of Health and Human Services

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

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

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

42 CFR Part 431

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

Department of the Treasury

31 CFR Part 33

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

 Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 571 and 572

 Child Restraint Systems; Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy;
Final Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0176]
RIN 2127-AL10 (Formerly RIN 2127-AJ44)

Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard for child restraint systems to expand its applicability to
child restraints sold for children weighing up to 36 kilograms (kg) (80
pounds (lb)). This rule also amends the standard to incorporate use of
a Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy (HIII-10C), weighing 35 kg
(78 lb), in compliance tests of child restraints newly subject to the
standard. In a companion document published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register, NHTSA is adding specifications and qualification
requirements for the HIII-10C to our regulation for anthropomorphic
test devices. This rulemaking establishes performance and other
requirements for child restraint systems heretofore not regulated by a
safety standard, i.e., child restraints manufactured for children
weighing 65 to 80 lb.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 27, 2014. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
standard is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
February 27, 2014. If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this
rule, your petition must be received by April 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should 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 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For
legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to
these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rulemaking originally had the RIN 2127-
AJ44. This final rule has a new RIN (AL10) because a September 2011
final rule on one of the issues of the rulemaking was considered to
have completed action on the previous RIN.
    Petitions for reconsideration of this rule: The petition will be
placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Summary of Rulemaking Proposals
    a. August 31, 2005 NPRM
    b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM (2008 SNPRM)
    c. November 24, 2010 SNPRM (2010 SNPRM)
III. Overview of Issues Decided in This Final Rule
IV. Agency Decisions
    a. Extend the Applicability of FMVSS No. 213
    b. Weight Ranges
    c. Performance and Other Criteria
    1. HIII-10C Dummy
    2. HIII-6C Dummy
    d. UMTRI Positioning Procedure
    e. LATCH Issues
    1. The Label
    2. Combined Weight
    3. Account for Weight of CRS
    4. Top Tether
    5. Testing with the HIII-10C
    6. Boosters
    7. Other
    f. Lead Time
    g. Mass Limit
    h. Miscellaneous Issues
    1. Housekeeping
    2. Belt Fit
    3. Shoe Size
    4. Preemption Language
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Introduction

    The dynamic test requirements in FMVSS No. 213 comprehensively
assess the crashworthiness of child restraint systems (CRSs) in a
rigorous 48 kilometers per hour (kmph) (30 miles per hour (mph))
frontal sled test. The assessment uses available anthropomorphic test
devices (ATDs) (crash test dummies) representing children of different
ages. The ATDs are regularly assessed, upgraded, replaced or
supplemented with new ATDs by NHTSA, as needed and as new state-of-the-
art test dummies become available.
    Through the history of FMVSS No. 213, the number and sizes of ATDs
used to assess CRSs' compliance with the standard has greatly expanded.
Child occupants of many different ages are represented by the ATDs, to
provide an expansive assessment of the ability of CRSs to restrain the
children for whom the CRS manufacturer has designed the restraint.
    The agency began the FMVSS No. 213 sled test program in 1979 with a
6-month-old child (uninstrumented) ATD and a three-year-old child
(instrumented) ATD.\1\ In 1995, NHTSA expanded the test devices by
replacing the 6-month-old with ATDs representing a newborn infant and a
9-month-old child, and added a 6-year-old child instrumented ATD, the
latter to test booster seats.\2\ In 2003, NHTSA added an instrumented
12-month-old infant ATD to the standard in place of the uninstrumented
9-month-old dummy, and replaced the 3-year-old child and 6-year-old
child ATDs with their state-of-the-art Hybrid III counterparts.\3\ In
that 2003 rulemaking, NHTSA expanded the applicability of FMVSS No. 213
to CRSs for children who weigh up to 65 lb and added a weighted Hybrid
III 6-year-old child ATD to test restraints recommended for children in
the upper weight range. The agency aimed to have an array of ATDs
representing children at or near the extremes of the weight ranges
identified by a manufacturer as being suitable for each type of child
restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979.
    \2\ 60 FR 35126, July 6, 1995.
    \3\ 68 FR 37620, June 24, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 2000, NHTSA asked the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) Dummy Family Task Group (DFTG) to develop a test dummy
representative of a 10-year-old child. NHTSA had sought development of
a test dummy between the sizes of a 6-year-old and a 12-year-old for
several years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A 12-year-old is approximately the size of a 5th percentile
adult female. There are ATDs in NHTSA's regulations representing a
5th percentile adult female for use in its vehicle frontal and side
impact programs. (49 CFR part 572, Subparts O and V, respectively.)

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

Legislative Activity

    The agency's adoption of new ATDs into FMVSS No. 213 has long been
of interest to Congress. The 1995 and 2002 rulemakings, supra, adding
the new ATDs began from agency planned upgrades to FMVSS No. 213.
During the course of NHTSA's development of the test dummies,
legislative goals mirroring agency initiatives to adopt the ATDs were
enacted.\5\ NHTSA's adoption of the ATDs in furtherance of agency goals
also satisfied these legislative goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and
the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and
Documentation (TREAD) Act, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legislative activity has likewise followed the development of an
ATD representing a 10-year-old child. In 2002, NHTSA began evaluating
the first production prototype of the 10-year-old child dummy that DFTG
had developed in response to NHTSA's request.\6\ On December 4, 2002,
Public Law 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772 was enacted (Anton's Law), which
contained provisions for NHTSA to develop and evaluate a test dummy
that represents a 10-year-old child for use in testing child
restraints, and to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of
the dummy within 1 year following that evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Extensive evaluation of the dummy continued through mid-
2004. ``Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten Year Old Dummy
(HIII-10C),'' Stammen; Vehicle Research and Test Center, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (September 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA moved promptly to fulfill Anton's Law. Activities that would
satisfy many of the statute's mandates were already underway in NHTSA
in 2002 and subsequently completed by NHTSA by 2005. An August 31, 2005
NPRM (RIN 2127-AJ44) published by NHTSA was the final step in
fulfilling the agency's obligations under Anton's Law. With that 2005
NPRM and previous NHTSA initiatives, NHTSA fully met the mandates of
the statute.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The August 31, 2005 NPRM provides a detailed overview of
NHTSA's responses to the child restraint provisions of Anton's Law.
See 70 FR at 51721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Later Developments

    With the 2005 NPRM, the agency had high hopes that the HIII-10C
would enhance FMVSS No. 213 by ensuring that booster seats and other
CRSs recommended for older children would be robustly assessed to
ensure sound performance in a 48 kmph (30 mph) crash when used by
children at the upper limit of their recommended weight range,
typically up to 80 lb. When we published the 2005 proposal to include
the dummy in FMVSS No. 213, we proposed that booster seats must conform
to several new requirements based on HIII-10C measurements, including a
head injury criterion (HIC). We demonstrated in our pre-proposal
testing that while most CRSs conformed to the new requirements, there
were some failures, including those where HIC was exceeded. However,
during extensive post-NPRM booster seat testing, inconsistencies in the
test protocol revealed variability in the kinematics and measurements
of the HIII-10C. In particular, the agency discovered that a slight
perturbation in the test protocol could create a large change in HIC.
The high variability in HIC measurements was attributable to a design
feature unique to the HIII-10C in which chin-to-chest contact during
the impact event can be excessively hard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is described in detail in the January 23, 2008
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the agency devoted substantial rulemaking and
research efforts to try to address test variability. NHTSA investigated
the ATD's chin-to-chest contact and developed a seating procedure that
was proposed in an SNPRM published in 2008. Later, after analyzing
comments opposing the SNPRM, NHTSA published a second SNPRM in 2010
which proposed a different seating procedure, but acknowledged that HIC
appeared unusable as an FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion when the HIII-
10C was used so positioned. Throughout the rulemaking proceeding, NHTSA
informed the public of its research findings, concerns and ideas about
using the HIII-10C in FMVSS No. 213, and in turn learned from comments
from research organizations, consumer groups, CRS, vehicle, and ATD
manufacturers, and others. Considerable effort was devoted to revising
the test protocol to eliminate high variability in HIC.
    The endeavor has led to a new dummy positioning procedure that
improves test repeatability with no substantial change to the HIII-10C.
The agency expended substantial research and rulemaking resources in
this rulemaking. The ATD appeared to be a worthwhile test instrument
notwithstanding its problems in measuring HIC. We also wished to
implement Anton's Law as fully as possible.
    The agency has determined that the HIII-10C is an important ATD
that will enhance our ability to assess the performance of CRSs and
other occupant protection systems in protecting children.\9\ In the
accompanying 49 CFR part 572 final rule published today, we adopt the
HIII-10C into our regulation for anthropomorphic test devices. The
HIII-10C will provide an enhanced assessment of child restraint
performance and is worthy of adoption into FMVSS No. 213. However, due
to the variability in HIC measures resulting from hard chin-to-chest
contacts, we will not assess HIC as an FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion
when using this ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The HIII-10C represents children of a size heretofore not
represented by the ATDs used in NHTSA regulations. The child ATDs in
49 CFR part 572 that NHTSA uses for testing CRSs are ATDs
representing a newborn infant, a 12-month-old, a 3-year-old, a 6-
year-old, and a weighted 6-year-old. In 49 CFR part 572, there is
also specified a 5th percentile adult female ATD, which is
approximately the size of a 12-year-old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Rulemaking Proposals 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For readability purposes, this section summarizes the more
noteworthy rulemaking proposals still outstanding, which are
resolved by this final rule. It does not summarize more minor
proposals, such as housekeeping amendments, or issues that were
decided in previously-published documents, such as the continued
optional use of the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy to test CRSs, which
was discussed in a final rule published under RIN 2127-AJ44 on
September 9, 2011. All outstanding proposals, including those not
summarized here, are discussed in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. August 31, 2005 NPRM

    On August 31, 2005, NHTSA published an NPRM initiating rulemaking
proposing to amend FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to adopt an
instrumented 35 kg (78 lb) Hybrid III test dummy representing a 10-
year-old child. 70 FR 51720, August 31, 2005, Docket No. NHTSA-2005-
21245 (RIN 2127-AJ44). NHTSA proposed to:
    1. Expand the definition of ``child restraint system'' in FMVSS No.
213 to include devices designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft
to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 80 lb (36 kg) or
less;
    2. Use the HIII-10C dummy to test belt-positioning seats and other
child restraint systems recommended for children weighing more than 50
lb (22.7 kg);
    3. Incorporate, with the HIII-10C, the injury criteria and other
performance measures specified in FMVSS No. 213 for evaluating child
restraint systems;
    4. Remove a 4.4 kg mass limit for belt-positioning seats (S<IP_ADDRESS>
of FMVSS No. 213).

b. January 23, 2008 SNPRM (2008 SNPRM)

    The comments on the August 31, 2005 NPRM supported extending the
applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to child restraints recommended for
children up to 80 lb (36 kg), and supported having a 10-year-old dummy
to test higher weight-rated child restraints. However, several
commenters raised concerns about the biofidelity of the HIII-10C dummy,
particularly with regard to the interaction of the dummy's chin with
the upper sternal bib region covering the upper portion of a metal
``spine box.'' Commenters said that the dummy exhibited ``chin-to-
chest'' contacts resulting in high HIC scores and high HIC variability
when tested multiple times under the same conditions.
    In response to these comments, the agency conducted a series of
tests with the HIII-10C dummy to investigate the factors that
influenced chin-to-chest contact and the resulting high HIC scores and
HIC variability. Results revealed that dummy posture was the primary
factor contributing to HIC variation observed in testing of belt-
positioning seats.\11\ A more upright dummy posture minimized the hard
chin-to-chest contact, which resulted in more repeatable and generally
lower HIC values. Accordingly, the agency developed a new dummy
positioning procedure which established dummy posture (14 degree torso
angle \12\) and a belt positioned at specific landmarks of the dummy's
body, and prepared an SNPRM to propose the procedure for use in FMVSS
No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Detailed explanation provided in the January 23, 2008 SNPRM
(73 FR at 3904-3905).
    \12\ In the January 23, 2008 SNPRM, infra, torso angle was
defined as the angle between the line joining the center of gravity
of the dummy's head to its H-point and a vertical plane (73 FR 3901,
3907).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 23, 2008, the agency published the 2008 SNPRM.\13\ The
document supplemented the 2005 NPRM by:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ SNPRM for FMVSS No. 213, 73 FR 3901, Docket No. NHTSA-2007-
0048; reopening of comment period, 73 FR 15963, March 26, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Proposing dummy positioning procedures that establish dummy
posture (14 degree torso angle) and seat belt positions based on
specific landmarks of the dummy's body. NHTSA proposed that the dummy
positioning procedures would be used when using the HIII-10C and the
Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy (HIII-6C) to test belt-positioning
seats.
    2. Changing an earlier proposal concerning which CRSs would be
tested with the HIII-10C test dummy. The 2008 SNPRM proposed that child
restraints recommended for children weighing 22.7 to 29.5 kg (50 to 65
lb) be tested with the HIII-6C dummy for performance, and with the
weighted HIII-6C dummy for structural integrity. The HIII-10C dummy
would be used to test CRSs recommended for children weighing more than
29.5 kg (65 lb).

c. November 24, 2010 SNPRM (2010 SNPRM)

    The comments received on the January 23, 2008 SNPRM strongly
opposed the 14 degree torso angle positioning procedure. Several
commenters supported the dummy positioning procedure developed by the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) and
urged NHTSA to adopt those procedures. However, some commenters noted
that the UMTRI procedure results in unrealistically high HIC values
measured by the dummy due to the more slouched positioning of the
dummy. UMTRI suggested that NHTSA not use HIC in the testing of belt-
positioning seats with the HIII-10C until the biofidelity of the test
dummy is improved.
    Based on an analysis of the comments to the 2008 SNPRM and other
information, including the results of additional testing by NHTSA of
belt-positioning seats using the UMTRI positioning procedure, NHTSA
issued the 2010 SNPRM on November 24, 2010. The document supplemented
the proposals of the earlier NPRMs by proposing to:
    1. Adopt a procedure for positioning the HIII-10C dummy in belt-
positioning seats based on the procedure developed by UMTRI, instead of
the 14 degree torso upright procedure. The UMTRI procedure includes
specifications for positioning the belt-positioning seat on the
standard seat assembly. The 2010 SNPRM also proposed using the UMTRI
procedure when testing with the HIII-6C in belt-positioning seats in
FMVSS No. 213 tests.
    2. Withdraw the proposal for the HIC criterion for the HIII-10C
dummy, until problems with the dummy that resulted in
uncharacteristically high HIC values and HIC variability in FMVSS No.
213 testing have been resolved.
    3. Specify that a child restraint system recommended for children
weighing over 29.5 kg (65 lb) will not be subject to testing with the
HIII-10C when attached to the standard seat assembly using the Lower
Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) \14\ system. These CRSs would
be tested with the HIII-10C while attached to the standard seat
assembly with the seat belt system. To reduce the likelihood that a
consumer may mistakenly use this type of CRS with LATCH, the 2010 SNPRM
proposed to require harness-equipped CRSs recommended for children of a
weight range that includes children weighing over 29.5 kg (65 lb), to
be labeled with an instruction to the consumer not to use the vehicle
LATCH system with a child weighing more than 29.5 kg (65 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, a
term that was developed by industry to refer to the child restraint
anchorage system required to be installed in vehicles (FMVSS No.
225). FMVSS No. 213 requires harness-equipped conventional child
safety seats to be able to be installed in a vehicle by both a
vehicle's LATCH system, and the vehicle's seat belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received on November 24, 2010 SNPRM
    The agency received 14 comments on the 2010 SNPRM, from child
restraint manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, child passenger
advocacy groups, and research organizations. Generally, all commenters
expressly or implicitly supported using the UMTRI positioning procedure
to test the HIII-10C and HIII-6C dummies in belt-positioning seats,
agreeing that the procedure would position the ATDs in a more realistic
seating posture than the 14 degree torso angle positioning procedure.
JPMA asked that NHTSA not use a pelvis positioning pad referenced in
the proposed UMTRI procedure, believing that the pad increases the
likelihood of hard chin-to-chest contact that may result in high HIC
values and HIC variability, and asked several technical questions
relating to how the UMTRI procedure is conducted. Commenters expressed
support for not adopting HIC, although several made clear their view
that NHTSA should begin measuring HIC as soon as possible.
    In commenting on the proposal that the HIII-10C dummy would be used
to test CRSs recommended for children weighing more than 29.5 kg (65
lb), Britax suggested that the cut-off should be 70 lb, so that its CRS
that is currently recommended for use with children weighing more than
65 lb would not be tested with the HIII-10C dummy.
    A number of commenters had views on the proposed label for harness-
equipped CRSs sold for heavier children. All agreed that consumers are
in need of information as to how heavy a child could be without
potentially overloading the LATCH anchors. Most commenters on this
issue supported a label, but several (including JPMA and associations
of vehicle manufacturers) believed that, to avoid overloading the

LATCH anchors, the maximum child occupant weight for LATCH use
specified on the label should be based on the combined weight of the
CRS and the child occupant, rather than the child weight alone. On the
other hand, Sunshine Kids, a CRS manufacturer, suggested that the
standard should provide CRS manufacturers the ability to determine the
maximum weight of the child the CRS can hold, if the CRS manufacturer
could provide crash test results showing that the CRS with an ATD with
a maximum recommended weight will remain structurally intact and will
not exceed a 12,000 Newton (N) load on the anchors in a 35 mile per
hour (mph) frontal barrier crash test with a 47 g deceleration pulse.
    Some commenters (including consumer advocates) supported a weight
limit only on using the lower LATCH anchors, and not the top tether
anchor. Several commenters (including CRS and vehicle manufacturers)
suggested that the label ought to allow CRS manufacturers to state that
the LATCH anchors could be used to secure a belt-positioning booster to
the vehicle seat, to avoid having the booster become a flying
projectile in a crash.
Differences With the 2010 SNPRM
    After reviewing the comments to the 2010 SNPRM, we have decided to
adopt the following modifications of its proposal:
    Regarding the UMTRI procedure, we changed the proposal regarding
use of the pelvis positioning pad, to only prepare the HIII-10C dummy
with the pad, and not the HIII-6C dummy. The lap shield used with the
HIII-6C dummy and the HIII-10C are the same but the dimensions of the
drawing of the lap shield proposed in the 2010 SNPRM are reduced to
better fit the child dummies. We added steps to the procedure preparing
the HIII-10C dummy to set the dummy's neck and lumbar angle. This setup
was proposed in the 2008 SNPRM.
    We did not adopt the proposed instructions on how to apply the seat
belt on the dummy during the positioning procedure due to an oversight
with the proposal. The proposed instructions were specific to
continuous belts. FMVSS No. 213 does not specify a continuous belt so
the provisions were not relevant to the FMVSS No. 213 belt system.
    Other changes are to the proposed requirements for labeling and
written instructions, with regard to how heavy a child can be before
LATCH should no longer be used to attach a harness-equipped CRS to the
vehicle seat.
    These and other changes are discussed in this preamble.

III. Overview of Issues Decided in This Final Rule

    Based on our analysis of all available information, including
comments to the 2005 NPRM, 2008 SNPRM, and 2010 SNPRM, this final rule
amends FMVSS No. 213 in the following manner.
    (a) We extend the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to child restraint
systems recommended for use by children weighing 80 lb or less, from
the current criterion of 65 lb or less.
    (b) We adopt the following injury criteria for the HIII-10C dummy
in the sled test: chest acceleration = 60 g's; head excursion = 813 mm
for untethered condition and 720 mm for tethered condition; and knee
excursion = 915 mm.
    (c) This final rule adopts a procedure for positioning the HIII-6C
and HIII-10C dummies in belt-positioning seats based on the procedure
developed by UMTRI but without the use of the pelvis positioning pad
for the HIII-6C dummy.
    (d) We specify our use of the HIII-10C dummy in FMVSS No. 213
compliance tests of CRSs recommended for children weighing more than 65
lb. We test CRSs rated for children weighing 50 to 65 lb with the HIII-
6C instrumented dummy for performance, and with the weighted HIII-6C
uninstrumented dummy for structural integrity.
    (e) This final rule requires a label to be placed on a CRS equipped
with internal harnesses for which the combined weight of the CRS and
the maximum recommended child weight for use with the internal
harnesses exceeds 65 lb. The label informs the consumer that the lower
anchors may be used to attach the CRS to the vehicle seat up to a
combined child and CRS weight of 65 lb when the child is restrained by
the internal harnesses. The purpose of the label is to reduce consumer
confusion about using lower LATCH anchorages, and to ensure that forces
generated by the child and CRS in most crash conditions do not exceed
the lower anchors' design limits. This final rule also specifies that
in a compliance test, NHTSA will not attach harness-equipped CRSs to
the standard seat assembly using the lower anchorages of the LATCH
system, when the test involves an ATD whose weight is greater than the
manufacturer-recommended maximum child weight for lower LATCH anchor
use.
    (f) Other issues. This final rule also amends FMVSS No. 213 to:
delete the mass limit of 4.4 kg for belt-positioning boosters
(S<IP_ADDRESS>); make housekeeping amendments (e.g., remove reference to a
9-month-old child ATD since it is no longer used in compliance tests);
address views expressed on possible future belt fit requirements, and
provide a lead time of two years.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the proposals underlying this final
rule, the provisions they contained and how they progressed.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

IV. Agency Decisions

a. Extend the Applicability of FMVSS No. 213

    There has been considerable interest over the years in expanding
the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to increase the likelihood that CRSs
that are recommended for older children will perform adequately in a
crash. This interest goes hand-in-hand with efforts to increase CRS use
among older children who cannot adequately fit a vehicle's lap and
shoulder belt system. The goal of expanding the applicability of FMVSS
No. 213 is to ensure that CRSs that are recommended for children over
the current 65 lb weight limit of the standard meet the dynamic test
requirements of the standard.
    In the TREAD Act final rule (supra), the applicability of FMVSS No.
213 was expanded to child restraint systems for

children who weigh up to 65 lb. The agency also specified the use of
the weighted 6-year-old (62-lb) test dummy to test restraints
recommended for children weighing 50 to 65 lb. In the TREAD Act final
rule, the agency considered the merits of extending the standard to
restraints recommended for use by children weighing up to 80 lb, but
decided against that expansion because there was not then any test
dummy that could adequately assess the dynamic performance of a child
restraint in restraining an 80 lb child. NHTSA believed that expanding
the standard to restraints for children weighing up to 80 lb would not
be meaningful in the absence of a dummy of suitable size and weight
that could assess the conformance of the restraints with the
performance requirements of the standard.
    The HIII-10C is now available for incorporation into FMVSS No. 213.
The agency has evaluated the test dummy, and is satisfied that the
dummy's performance merits its use in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests,
subject to the condition that HIC will not be a performance criterion
in FMVSS No. 213 when this ATD is used. In a separate final rule
published today, we are amending 49 CFR part 572, ``Anthropomorphic
test devices,'' to adopt the HIII-10C into subpart T.
    This final rule enhances child passenger safety by way of the
requirements discussed below. It should be noted, however, that data
indicate that booster seats are generally very effective items of
equipment. Analyses of NHTSA's crash databases \15\ and insurance
claims databases \16\ indicate that use of belt-positioning seats by 4-
to 8-year-old children reduces the risk of moderate \17\ and greater
severity injuries by 45 percent compared to when only seat belts are
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on CDS and State
Data, NHTSA, DOT HS811338, July 2010.
    \16\ Arbogast, K. B., Jermakian, J. S., Kellan, M.J., Durbin, D.
R., Effectiveness of Belt-Positioning Booster Seats: An Updated
Assessment, Pediatrics, Vol. 124, pp. 1281-1286, 2009.
    \17\ Moderate injuries are of severity level 2 in the
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we do not expect this rule to increase costs noticeably
because all CRSs that we tested with the HIII-10C dummy met the FMVSS
No. 213 performance requirements adopted today. (Labeling of the CRSs
will be revised pursuant to this rule, involving minimal costs.) Yet,
by requiring that all future CRSs recommended for children weighing
more than 65 lb will be tested with the 10-year-old child dummy, this
rule will ensure that the satisfactory performance of current CRSs for
older children will be maintained.
Comments; Agency Decision
    All commenters to the NPRMs supported extending the applicability
of FMVSS No. 213 to child restraints recommended for children up to 80
lb, and supported having a 10-year-old dummy to test higher-weight
rated child restraints. With regard to the Hybrid III 10-year-old
dummy, the concerns about the HIII-10C dummy's measurement of HIC are
addressed by the next section below in this preamble.
    In response to the 2005 NPRM, Public Citizen (PC) requested that
NHTSA reevaluate its weight limits for booster seats to make sure all
children are adequately protected in motor vehicles because the average
10-year-old today weighs more than 80 pounds and the weight of children
is steadily increasing. PC also suggested that the 10-year-old dummy
should be up-weighted to more closely match the mean weight of children
today. It stated that the agency's proposed increase for recommended
restraints does not accurately reflect the increased weight of children
who will need to use the booster seats.
    We disagree with PC that the HIII-10C is unrepresentative and
should be up-weighted. The HIII-10C dummy, with a weight of 77.6 lb (35
kg), a seated height of 29 inches (in) (74 cm), and a standing height
of 51 in (130 cm), is ideally suited to test the upper load and height
limits of safety restraints for nearly all 9-year-old and more than
half of 10-year-old children. The agency notes that weight and seated
height are the most relevant parameters for child occupant injury
assessment purposes. Weight relates to the structural integrity of the
CRS and belt restraints. Seated height establishes the location and fit
of the seat belts on the shoulder and on the torso as well as head
trajectory and its forward displacement during the sled test. Being
slightly above the average, the mass of the HIII-10C dummy is
sufficiently suitable for testing the structural integrity of CRSs and
assures their durability for use by children in the 6- to 10-year-old
age range.
    We conclude that the weight and seated height of the HIII-10C are
well-chosen for testing CRSs rated up to 80 lb. The ATD's anthropometry
fits and is centered on the mid distribution range of physical
dimensions of an average 10-year-old identified in the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2000 growth charts. Its weight and
seated height are well suited to address the structural integrity and
the belt fit of booster seats, respectively, being offered in the
market place for those size children.\18\ The HIII-10C successfully
fills the gap between a 6-year-old and a 12-year-old child, and
warrants incorporation into FMVSS No. 213. Further discussion can be
found in the 49 CFR part 572 final rule published concurrently with
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As used in FMVSS No. 213, the HIII-10C will also measure
head and knee excursions and chest accelerations, providing a
meaningful assessment of injury risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The incorporation of the HIII-10C dummy will now allow testing of
CRSs and belt-positioning seats for children weighing more than 65 lb
and up to 80 lb, which is a growing segment of the CRS market that
currently is not undergoing compliance testing for performance at the
maximum recommended weight limit. Incorporating the ATD fulfills
NHTSA's plan to have an ATD representing children between the size of a
6-year-old and a 12-year-old, and is as Anton's Law envisioned.
Adopting the HIII-10C makes the regulation of CRSs for children up to
80 lb meaningful, as the performance of the CRSs to protect larger
children will now be dynamically tested in a rigorous sled test with an
ATD better representative of children for whom the CRS is recommended
than current ATDs in FMVSS No. 213.

b. Weight Ranges

    Originally, the 2005 NPRM proposed the HIII-10C be used to test
CRSs for children over 50 lb. In its comment to that NPRM, Britax
suggested that, due to the size of the HIII-10C, the HIII-10C dummy
should be used for CRSs recommended for children weighing more than 65
lb instead of 50 lb. NHTSA agreed, and in the 2008 SNPRM proposed the
use of the HIII-10C to test CRSs recommended for use by children
weighing more than 65 lb and the use of the HIII-6C dummy and the
weighted HIII-6C dummy to assess the compliance of CRSs recommended for
children in the 50 to 65 lb weight range.
Comments
    In its comment on the 2010 SNPRM, Britax requested that the 65 lb
cut-off be increased to 70 lb, so that only CRSs recommended for
children weighing 70 lb or more would be tested with the HIII-10C.
Britax stated that it produces convertible \19\ CRSs recommended for
children weighing 5 to 70 lb. The commenter stated that the HIII-10C
weighs 8 lb more than the recommended weight range of the CRS and does
not fit properly in the restraint. Britax stated that the proposed

requirement would result in the removal of such convertible CRSs from
the market. Increasing the standard's weight cut-off to 70 lb, as
Britax suggested, would result in this CRS not being tested with the
HIII-10C dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Britax Marathon, Boulevard and Advocate convertible seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    We are declining Britax's request. We believe that CRSs recommended
for children weighing 65 lb or more should be tested with the HIII-10C.
If the standard's criterion were 70 lb, child restraints rated for
children up to 70 lb would only be tested at the upper weight range
with an instrumented test dummy weighing just 51 lb (the HIII 6-year-
old). This would create a large gap in testing the CRS to its
performance using an ATD. The agency seeks to limit large gaps in FMVSS
No. 213 testing to the extent possible.
    In the past, problems arose when the gap was too large. When FMVSS
No. 213 first adopted dynamic test requirements, two child test dummies
were used in the test. (44 FR 72131; December 13, 1979.) One
represented a 6-month-old child, the other a 3-year-old child. Due to
the unavailability of other ATDs, the standard was written such that
CRSs recommended for children weighing 0 to 20 lb were tested with the
6-month-old ATD, and CRSs recommended for children 20 to 50 lb were
tested with the 3-year-old ATD (weighing 33 lb).
    Alarmingly, CRSs (shield-type boosters) recommended for children
weighing 20 to 70 lb were subsequently produced under that scenario.
Manufacturers were recommending the CRSs for a wide range of children
(20 to 70 lb), but were only required by FMVSS No. 213 to test them
with just a 3-year-old (33 lb) dummy. Concerned about the ability of
CRSs to restrain children in such a large weight/size range, NHTSA
conducted tests on shield-type booster seats using newly-developed ATDs
representing a 9-month-old (20 lb) child and a 6-year-old child (48
lb).
    The test results confirmed that the assessment of performance under
then-FMVSS No. 213 needed to be expanded. In some tests, the CRS
ejected the 9-month-old (20 lb) dummy, or structurally failed or
yielded excessive head excursions in tests with the 6-year-old (48 lb)
dummy. These CRSs--all recommended for children 20 to 70 lb--were
certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213. The problem was that the standard
only required testing of the restraint with the 3-year-old (33 lb) test
dummy. The standard was not assessing the CRSs at the extremes of the
recommended weight ranges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ISTEA final rule, 60 FR 35126, July 6, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As FMVSS No. 213 evolved and more ATDs became available for
testing, we adopted more ATDs. To the extent possible, we try to ensure
that there are no large gaps in FMVSS No. 213 testing of CRSs,
particularly at the extremes of recommended weight ranges.
    In the 1995 ISTEA rulemaking adding ATDs to FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA
decided that CRSs for children weighing more than 40 lb would be tested
with a 6-year-old (48 lb) dummy. Id. In a petition for reconsideration
of the final rule, a CRS manufacturer asked that the weight cut-off be
43 lb instead of 40 lb, so that its CRSs rated for children up to 43 lb
would continue to be tested just with the 3-year-old (33 lb) dummy,
rather than with the 6-year-old (48 lb) dummy. In a June 18, 1996,
final rule responding to the petition, NHTSA disagreed and kept the
cut-off at 40 lb, believing that use of the 6-year-old dummy, weighing
48 pounds, would result in a more rigorous and better assessment of the
CRS in protecting children for whom the CRS was recommended than a test
with a 3-year-old dummy that weighs only 33 lb. (61 FR 30824.) That is,
if a CRS were recommended for children up to 43 lb, it should be tested
with the 6-year-old (48 lb) dummy as that ATD better represents the
children for whom the CRS is recommended at the upper recommended
weight range, than the 3-year-old dummy. Later, the CRS manufacturer
adjusted its CRS's weight cut-off from 43 lb to 40 lb.
    We recognize that competing interests have to be balanced in
deciding this topic. On the one hand is the interest in having children
restrained as long as possible in a restraint mode (e.g., rear-facing,
harness-restraint, or belt-positioning seat) rather than being
prematurely graduated to the CRS for children in the next older age
group. On the other hand, there is a need to assure that CRSs are
reasonably sled tested and are structurally sound to ensure that they
protect the children for whom the restraint is recommended, as
advertised.
    Our increasing the cut-off over which the HIII-10C would be used,
from 50 lb as originally proposed to 65 lb in this final rule, achieves
a balance. It will accommodate the majority of CRS manufacturers.\21\
It is possible that manufacturers that lower the CRS recommended weight
cut-off to 65 lb from some higher weight could redirect a small segment
of children to move to a belt-positioning sooner. However, CRSs
recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb would accommodate all 6-
year-old children and up to 93 percent of 7-year-old children. This
covers the large majority of children whom the agency recommends be
restrained in child restraints with harnesses until they exceed the
recommended height and weight limit.\22\ If the weight cut-off were 70
lb, the nearly 20-lb gap between the weight of the instrumented ATD (50
lb, 6-year-old child test dummy) used to test the Britax CRS and the
upper limit of the Britax CRS (70 lb) would be too large for NHTSA to
conclude that the performance of the CRS in protecting a child weighing
just under 70 lb was adequately assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The agency does not have the resources to add an
intermediate dummy (e.g., a 70 lb ATD) to further accommodate Britax
on this issue, to permit them to recommend their CRS for children
weighting up to 70 lb without being subject to testing with the
HIII-10 C (78 lb) dummy.
    \22\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/ChildSafety/step3 The Web site (last
accessed Sep. 6, 2011) states, ``Keep your 4 to 7 year old children
in their FORWARD-FACING car seat with a harness until they the top
height or weight limit allowed by your car seat's manufacturer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1996 rulemaking (61 FR 30824), we recognized that there was
a risk that, as a result of the decision to keep the weight cut-off at
40 lb, CRS manufacturers might revise the recommended upper weight
limit for their convertible CRSs from 43 lb to 40 lb. The negative
implication of this was that parents may transition their children out
of toddler restraints to booster seats or a vehicle belt system sooner
than when the child is more physically developed. Yet, the agency was
also hopeful that, in time, manufacturers could develop designs that
would enable a harness-equipped CRS to meet the performance
requirements in FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the 6-year-old child
dummy, thereby allowing the manufacturers to recommend their CRSs for
children weighing more than 40 lb (resulting in children being kept in
the harnessed-equipped CRS until they are older).
    Following the rulemaking, we have found first the former, then the
latter, was realized. CRS labels were initially revised such that
convertible (harness-equipped) restraints were recommended for children
only up to 40 lb. Later, newer designs emerged of convertible
restraints with upper weight limits up to 50 lb or 65 lb. The newer
CRSs have been designed to meet FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the 6-
year-old ATD.
    We do not believe that this decision will have negative safety
consequences of any note. Manufacturers of CRSs such as the one Britax
described could revise the weight cut-off downward to 65 lb so

as to avoid being tested with the HIII-10C, rather than completely
removing the CRS from the market. If a harnessed CRS is needed for
children weighing above 65 lb, experience has shown that CRS
manufacturers could fill that need. We are optimistic that
manufacturers that see a need will be able to redesign their harness-
equipped CRSs such that the CRS would be able to meet FMVSS No. 213
when tested with the HIII-10C dummy.
    This decision to make the cut-off 65 lb will benefit safety by
better ensuring that CRS recommended for use with children weighing
more than 65 lb will be dynamically assessed with an ATD that
represents the older children for whom the CRS is recommended.
Accordingly, the proposed weight categories are adopted.
    The final rule's weight categories are illustrated in Table 2.

                  Table 2--Final Rule Weight Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Are compliance tested by NHTSA
 CRS Recommended for use by children of     with these ATDs  (Subparts
             these sizes--                  refer to 49 CFR part 572)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight not greater than 5 kg (0 to 11    Newborn (subpart K).
 lb), or height not greater than 650 mm.
Weight greater than 5 but not greater    Newborn (subpart K), CRABI
 than 10 kg (11 to 22 lb) or height       (subpart R).
 greater than 650 mm but not greater
 than 850 mm.
Weight greater than 10 kg but not        CRABI (subpart R), HIII 3-year-
 greater than 18 kg (22 to 40 lb), or     old (subpart P).
 height greater than 850 mm but not
 greater than 1100 mm.
Weight greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but    HIII 6-year-old (subpart N) or
 not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb), or     HII 6-year-old (subpart I)
 height greater than 1100 mm but not      (manufacturer's option).
 greater than 1250 mm.
Weight greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but  HIII 6-year-old (subpart N) or
 not greater than 30 kg (65 lb), or       HII 6-year-old (subpart I)
 greater than 1100 mm but not greater     (manufacturer's option), and
 than 1250 mm.                            weighted HIII 6-year-old
                                          (subpart S).
Weight greater than 30 kg (65 lb), or    HIII 10-year-old (subpart T).*
 height greater than 1250 mm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No HIC measured with HIII-10C.

c. Performance and Other Criteria

1. HIII-10C Dummy
    The 2005 NPRM proposed performance criteria for the HIII-10-year-
old dummy similar to the current FMVSS No. 213 criteria, because the
agency was not aware of any injuries unique to children in booster
seats \23\ that would necessitate separate and differing injury
criteria limits. The specific injury criteria measurement maximums for
the HIII-10-year old dummy were: HIC36 = 1000; chest
acceleration = 60 g's (3 millisecond clip); head excursion = 813
millimeters (mm) for untethered condition, 720 mm for tethered
condition (if applicable); and knee excursion = 915 mm. We also
proposed applying other FMVSS No. 213 requirements to CRSs rated for
children who weigh up to 80 lb, including structural integrity, force
distribution, installation, child restraint webbing and belt assembly
requirements, and flammability requirements. (The agency also proposed
to eliminate S<IP_ADDRESS>'s limit on the mass of belt-positioning boosters.
This provision will be discussed later in this preamble.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NHTSA focused on booster seats in the NPRM because in 2005
CRSs for children weighing 65 to 80 lb were primarily booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 and 2010 SNPRMs added to or superseded some of the 2005
NPRM proposals on performance criteria. In response to comments to the
2005 NPRM pointing out high HIC values and HIC variability related to
hard chin-to-chest contact in FMVSS No. 213 testing with the HIII-10C
dummy, the 2010 SNPRM proposed not to adopt the HIC criterion for tests
conducted with the HIII-10C dummy in all CRSs. Correcting an oversight,
the 2008 NPRM proposed to amend S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 213 to specify
that the HIII-10C would not be used to determine the applicability of
the head support surface requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS>. Also in response to
comments, the 2010 SNPRM proposed to exclude CRSs tested with the HIII-
10C from a requirement that the CRS must meet the requirements of FMVSS
No. 213 when installed by means of the lower anchorags of a LATCH
system.
Comments
    In general, the commenters supported the proposal not to adopt HIC
when using the HIII-10C. UMTRI, Consumers Union (CU), Evenflo and JPMA
concurred with not using HIC until the uncharacteristically hard chin-
to-chest contact in the dummy has been corrected. JPMA agreed with
applying existing FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria and dynamic performance
measures for the HIII-10C dummy except for the HIC.
    Advocates for Highway Safety (Advocates), the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) and SafeRideNews also concurred with not using HIC but
requested that NHTSA expedite improving the dummy's biofidelity to
incorporate HIC into the injury requirements. Advocates and
SafeRideNews also requested that NHTSA include a HIC incorporation date
in the final rule. Advocates believed that, without the implementation
of HIC, quantification of the risk of head injury to children in belt-
positioning seats will be limited to head excursion which, the
commenter believed, provides only a ``rudimentary surrogate'' measure
of contact and non-contact head injuries.
    In supporting the proposal, UMTRI believed that NHTSA's injury data
analysis cited in the SNPRM did not identify a significant injury
problem that could be addressed by the inclusion of HIC in an FMVSS No.
213 booster seat test, regardless of the biofidelity of the dummy. It
suggested that efforts to reduce the number of head injuries in the
field should focus on reducing head excursion rather than reducing the
linear head acceleration used to calculate HIC.
    CU stated its belief that NHTSA's not adopting HIC at this point is
warranted when testing with the HIII-10C. CU stated that it too
concluded that the HIC values obtained from its sled tests (which are
similar to FMVSS No. 213) could not be used, due in part to the
potential variability of the data. CU believed that not adopting HIC is
``far preferable to suspending the use of the higher weight dummies
altogether, as those dummies serve a key purpose in evaluating other
potential injury criteria and structural integrity of seats recommended
for higher weight children.''
Agency Response
HIC
    For the reasons explained in the 2010 SNPRM, this final rule does
not adopt the use of HIC as an injury measure for the HIII-10C dummy in
FMVSS No. 213 tests at this time. CRSs tested with the

current HIII-10C ATD can produce HIC values in the ATD indicating an
unacceptable risk of head injury, even though head injuries due to
chin-to-chest contact are not occurring in the real world.
    NHTSA analyzed the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data files for the years 1999 to 2008
to better understand real world injuries among children in different
restraint conditions. The risk and source of injury to different body
regions was also determined. The sampled data consisted of children, 5-
12 years of age, in rear seats of light passenger vehicles that were
involved in non-rollover frontal towaway crashes. Weighting factors in
NASS/CDS were applied to the sample data to represent national
estimates of towaway crashes. The weighted data consisted of 910,308
(1940 unweighted sample) children of which 49 percent were 5-7 year
olds and 51 percent were 8-12 year olds. Among the 5-7 year olds, 69
percent were using vehicle seat belts, 22 percent were in harness CRS
or belt-positioning seat, and 9 percent were unrestrained. Among the 8-
12 year olds, 90 percent were using the vehicle belts, 1 percent was in
harness CRS or belt-positioning seat, and 9 percent were unrestrained.
    The risk of AIS 2+ injury\24\ for children 5-7 years old was 5.2
percent for unbelted children, 1.2 percent for belted children and 0.9
percent for children in CRSs. The AIS2+ injury risk for children 8-12
years old was 8.1 percent for unbelted children and 1.3 percent for
belted children. There were no cases of children 8-12 years old in
CRSs. Both age groups showed a decrease of injury risk when using
restraints (belt or CRS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ AIS 2+ injuries are those of moderate or greater severity
according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS); AIS 2+ include
injury severity levels: 2--moderate, 3--serious, 4--severe, 5--
critical, 6--unsurvivable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained (vehicle
seat belt or CRS) in rear seats were to the head and face (48 percent),
followed by upper extremities (19 percent), torso (17 percent) and
lower extremities (16 percent). The most-common known contacts for
AIS2+ head injuries to 5-12 year old children restrained by vehicle
seat belts or CRS (including belt-positioning seat) was the seat back
(50 percent). There was only one case in this sample of restrained
children where an AIS 2+ head injury occurred due to self-contact.
Further examination of this particular case indicated that it involved
a 7 year-old child restrained with a vehicle seat belt. The child's
head contacted his/her knee resulting in an AIS 2-severity concussion.
    The results of this real-world data analysis indicate that the
injury risk is substantially reduced when the child is restrained by
vehicle seat belts or in child restraints. The results show that most
head injuries in restrained children are caused by contact with the
seat back. Only one head injury case was associated with self contact
(head contact with knee) but no cases were reported where there was
chin-to-chest contact that resulted in a head injury.
    These data indicate that the high HIC values measured by the HIII-
10C dummy in laboratory sled tests due to chin-to-chest contact are not
replicating a real world injury mechanism. Children are not being
injured by chin-to-chest contact.
    Another reason we have decided not to use HIC as a criterion when
using the HIII-10C dummy to test belt-positioning seats is UMTRI's
information demonstrating that HIC can be reduced by poor shoulder belt
placement.\25\ UMTRI found in sled tests that when the shoulder belt
slips off the HIII-10C dummy shoulder, the chin-to-chest contact did
not occur because the dummy rolls out of the shoulder belt and moves
forward. As a result, the HIC value was low but head excursion
increased as the dummy's upper torso was not restrained by the shoulder
belt. Although head excursion increased in situations where the
shoulder belt slipped off the dummy, the values were still
substantially within compliance limits, therefore giving a ``passing''
value to the belt-positioning seat. These data demonstrated that using
HIC as an injury measure may encourage poor belt routing designs that
place the shoulder belt more outboard, which could allow the dummy to
roll out of the belt in a sled test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Klinich, K.D., Reed, M.P., Ritchie, N.L., Manary, M.A.,
Schneider, L.W., Rupp, J.D., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II:
Effect of Restraint Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating
Procedure, and Belt Fit on the Dynamic Response of the Hybrid III 10
YO ATD in Sled Tests,'' September 2008, UMTRI-2008-49-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will focus efforts to adopt a head injury criterion as soon
as possible. However, we will not set a date by which the HIC
requirement will be adopted, as Advocates suggested. As noted in the
2010 SNPRM and earlier in this document, the agency has research
projects underway to improve the capability of child dummies to assess
CRS performance.\26\ After the agency evaluates these improvements in
the HIII-10C dummy, they will be considered for incorporation into
FMVSS No. 213 and part 572. At the time that the current dummy
biofidelity concerns are addressed, the agency will consider adopting
HIC in the agency's compliance tests. A termination date in the
standard would cause confusion, as HIC would not be adopted into the
standard without a rulemaking proceeding providing notice of and an
opportunity to comment on the adoption of the improved ATD and HIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The near-term Phase I upgrades to the HIII-6C and the HIII-
10C dummies that are expected to be completed in the 2013 timeframe
include improvements in the biofidelity of the dummy kinematics. The
Phase II research is directed toward developing biomechanical
response data for developing future improved child dummies. The
Phase III of this research includes design, development, and
evaluation of a new prototype 3, 6 and 10-year-old child dummies
which is expected to be completed in the 2015 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not adopting the Alliance's recommendation to limit
the HIC calculation to periods prior to chin-to-chest contact. We do
not agree that the timing of chin-to-chest contact can be determined by
the calculation of external forces applied to the head. We examined
such an approach in detail in our research tests and found it difficult
to determine the time of chin-to-chest contact in a definitive manner.
    SafeRideNews inquired why HIC would not be adopted in tests of the
HIII-10C in harnessed CRSs, when the problematic dummy readings
occurred with the dummy in belt-positioning boosters. In response, the
agency did not conduct an evaluation of the HIII-10C dummy in harness-
equipped CRSs due to unavailability of harness-equipped CRSs rated for
children weighing more than 65 pounds at the time of testing. However,
the agency believes that there is a likelihood of uncharacteristically
hard chin-to-chest contact using the HIII-10C in CRSs with harnesses.
In tests with the HIII-10C dummy restrained in a CRS with a harness,
the dummy's chest is restrained by the harness, letting the head move
and rotate forward in a similar manner as when it is tested restrained
in a belt-positioning seat. Accordingly, we are not adopting HIC for
tests of the HIII-10C in all CRSs.
    With this decision, other problems the commenters raised concerning
the HIC measurement in FMVSS No. 213 are moot.
Excursion
    For the reasons provided in the notices of proposed rulemaking, we
have adopted the proposal to measure head and knee excursions.
Measuring the ATD's head excursion is an appropriate metric for
evaluating belt-positioning seat performance. We believe that the HIII-
10C exhibits good

biofidelity for measuring head and knee excursion and that measuring a
CRS's ability to limit excursions and chest acceleration provides a
meaningful assessment of the protective capabilities of the CRS.
    As discussed in the 2010 SNPRM (75 FR at 71655), in 2008, Ash et
al.\27\ published results of a study comparing the responses of a
pediatric cadaver restrained by a three-point belt with that of a HIII-
10C dummy in frontal sled tests. The cadaver sled test was replicated
using the HIII-10C dummy, and the kinematics of the dummy and cadaver
were compared, along with the accelerations of the head, shoulder and
lap belt loads of the cadaver and dummy. (Due to anthropometric and
age-equivalent differences between the cadaver and the dummy, geometric
scaling was performed on the signals based on the seated height and
material properties.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Ash, JH, Sherwood, CP, Abdelilah, Y, Crandall, JR, Parent,
DP, Kallieris, D., ``Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with
a Pediatric Cadaver Restrained by a Three-point Belt in Frontal Sled
Tests,'' Proceedings of the 21st ESV Conference, June 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study showed similarities in the shoulder belt and lap belt
forces and head excursions of HIII-10C and the scaled pediatric
cadaver. The head excursions between the ATD and the scaled cadaver
were similar, although there were differences in how the head reached
its maximum excursion point. The T1 vertebra (base of the neck) of the
cadaver had greater forward travel than that of the dummy while the
dummy experienced greater rotation at the base of the neck than the
cadaver. These differences in kinematics were attributed to the rigid
thoracic spine of the dummy, along with extensive bending at the
cervical and thoracic spine junction. The greater neck rotation at the
base of the neck of the dummy compared to the cadaver led to greater
angular velocity of the head. This greater head velocity, coupled with
the stiff chin-to-chest interaction reported by NHTSA,\28\ resulted in
significantly higher HIC values for the dummy than that expected based
on field injury risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Stammen, J., Sullivan, L., NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test
Center, ``Development of a Hybrid III 6 Yr. Old and 10 Yr. Old Dummy
Seating Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,'' January 2008, Docket
NHTSA-2007-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Limiting head excursion will provide protection to the child
occupant. We strongly disagree with Advocates that a head excursion
limit is only a ``rudimentary'' surrogate measure of contact and non-
contact head injuries. As discussed above, most head injuries to 8- to
12-year-old children are contact injuries and are due to impact with
the vehicle interior. Also discussed above was the similarity between
the shoulder belt and lap belt forces and head excursions of the HIII-
10C and a scaled pediatric cadaver. Therefore, we believe a limit on
the excursion of the HIII-10C dummy's head in FMVSS No. 213 sled tests
will mitigate the risk of head contact with interior surfaces in
frontal crashes, and thereby result in reduced risk of head injury to
heavier children restrained in CRSs. For that reason also, the agency
disagrees with JPMA's position that the HIII-10C dummy is only
appropriate for evaluating the structural integrity of the CRS.
    IIHS asked whether the head excursion limits are adequate to
prevent children's heads from striking forward structures, especially
in the prevention of children sitting in back seats from striking front
seats. CHOP recommended that NHTSA consider the head excursions of the
HIII-10C as a minimum estimate of the true head excursion.
    In response, the agency is currently reexamining \29\ how well the
test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 sled test replicate the real
world, including test velocity, excursion limits, and the test bench
seat.\30\ Among other things, this research, targeted for completion in
2013, will help the agency determine if the current head excursion
limits need to be revised. NHTSA is also working on improving the
biofidelity of the HIII-6C and -10C dummies by implementing revisions
to the shoulder, thoracic spine, and neck which can be retrofitted into
both the HIII-6C and -10C dummies. We will investigate how these
revisions will affect head and neck kinematics of the two dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The representativeness of the seat assembly and excursion
limit were examined by NHTSA in the rulemaking responding to the
TREAD Act. 68 FR 37620.
    \30\ See, NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and
Research Priority Plan 2011--2013, March 2011, Docket No. NHTSA-
2009-0108-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the meantime, the agency will adopt the head excursion proposed
in the NPRM. The HIII-10C dummy is a reasonable and valuable tool for
establishing the maximum head excursion limits.
    In a comment to the 2005 NPRM, Advocates stated that children are
not adults and should have injury criteria limits scaled to levels
lower than those applied to adults. Advocates disagreed with NHTSA's
tentative conclusion that ``given the effectiveness of booster seats
currently in use, the proposed injury values would be appropriate to
ensure continued effectiveness of child restraints recommended for
children weighting up to 80 pounds.'' Advocates stated that greater
benefits can be obtained if appropriate injury criteria are tailored
for children in this age group. In contrast, Graco stated its
preference toward the application of the same criteria across all
weight ranges and crash test dummies.
    In response, it should be noted that in the TREAD Act rulemaking
(final rule, 68 FR 37620), NHTSA considered adopting the scaled injury
criteria adopted by FMVSS No. 208. NHTSA proposed that the FMVSS No.
208's scaled HIC limits of 39015, 57015 and
70015 be incorporated into FMVSS No. 213 for tests with the
CRABI 12-month-, and Hybrid III 3- and 6-year-old dummies,
respectively. However, NHTSA decided against adopting the scaled injury
criteria because the agency was unable to confirm the existence of a
safety problem that the scaled injury limits of FMVSS No. 208 would
remedy. Relatedly, not enough was known about what modifications to
child restraints could be made for the restraints to meet the proposed
injury limits. In balancing the effects of meeting the scaled injury
criteria against the possible impacts on the price of restraints, the
agency determined that the scaled injury limits should not be added to
FMVSS No. 213 at that time. (See 68 FR at 37649.)
    We continue to believe that the HIC limit of 1000 is appropriate
for FMVSS No. 213. However, as NHTSA continuously considers potential
improvements to FMVSS No.213, the agency has a series of research
projects to generate improved response data for the head, neck, thorax,
abdomen, and pelvis for future child dummies. NHTSA will continue to
support and monitor this ongoing research and will consider the
findings of this research in its efforts to enhance child passenger
protection.
Chest Acceleration
    The HIII-10C satisfactorily measures chest acceleration, which is a
performance criterion adopted by this final rule. A chest acceleration
limit is established in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that the CRS safely
manages the crash energy of the 48 kmph (30 mph) crash simulated by the
FMVSS No. 213 sled test. Chest acceleration measurement evaluates how
well the child restraint and the seat belts allow the occupant to
``ride down,'' or absorb, the crash forces over a period of time in a
manner that avoids injury.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The concept of ``ride down'' can be understood in baseball
terms. When you move your hand rearward while catching a baseball,
you are ``riding down'' the force from the ball and do not feel any
pain due to the impact of the ball on your hand. If you held your
hand stationary while catching the ball, the impact on your hand
would be painful. With the chest g limit in FMVSS No. 213, the CRS
will have to dissipate the crash forces in a controlled manner, so
that the child will have a greater likelihood of safely riding down
the crash forces.

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

Abdominal Injury
    The agency did not propose an abdominal injury criterion in this
rulemaking. The 2005 NPRM and 2010 SNPRM discussed some of the agency's
research projects that are exploring changes to the ATDs to measure
abdominal loads.
    In response to Advocates' comment that NHTSA should adopt the
Abdominal Injury Ratio (AIR) injury criterion at this point until
research on an instrumented abdomen is completed or an alternative
abdominal injury measure established, there is not enough information
at this time to support the AIR criterion. NHTSA discussed in the NPRM
the development of AIR but did not propose the AIR criterion. As stated
in the 2005 NPRM, we will continue to explore different techniques to
measure abdominal injury, such as measuring abdominal loads directly
with an abdominal insert under development. This issue is discussed in
more detail in the accompanying 49 CFR part 572 final rule published
today.
    We are hopeful that the instrumented abdominal insert under
development could be retrofitted into the existing HIII-6C and HIII-10C
dummies. The goal is for the abdominal insert to provide direct
measurement of abdominal loads on the dummies and facilitate the
agency's ability to determine abdominal injury and submarining
potential in frontal sled tests. However, adopting an abdominal injury
measure at this time would be premature.
    For immediate use now, the agency has adopted the use of a
correlate to abdominal injuries, i.e., knee excursion. This final rule
for FMVSS No. 213 imposes limits on knee excursion and head excursion
for the HIII-10C. The limit on knee excursion prevents restraint
manufacturers from controlling head excursion by designing their
restraints so that children submarine excessively during a crash. The
agency has observed a strong correlation between knee excursion and
submarining in the child dummies.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Klinich, K., Reed, M., Orton, N., Manary, M., Rupp, J.,
``Optimizing Protection for Rear Seat Occupants: Assessing Booster
Performance with Realistic Belt Geometry Using the Hybrid III 6YO
ATD,'' UMTRI Report, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, March
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not proposing to test the dummies seated in an out-
of-position state (i.e., slouched position). The agency believes out-
of-position testing would unnecessarily increase the testing burden. We
also believe that achieving an acceptable, repeatable, and reproducible
out- of-position test would take a substantial amount of time and
agency resources due to the difficulty of positioning the dummy in a
consistent manner, when not seated as intended. We have not found a
safety need that would justify further complications and delays in this
rulemaking that would result from developing out-of-position
requirements.
2. HIII-6C Dummy
    We do not agree with the suggestion from Evenflo to suspend the use
of HIC for the HIII-6C dummy. Some CRS manufacturers are using the
HIII-6C dummy to certify the compliance of their CRSs to FMVSS No. 213
and have found the dummy to be a satisfactory test instrument even with
the use of HIC as an injury measure. The manufacturers have developed
products that are able to meet the HIC criterion and that are able to
limit hard chin-to-chest contact of the ATD. We do not find good reason
to suspend the criterion for those products.
    We realize that, for some manufacturers of products, using the
HIII-6C dummy to certify the product has been problematic. The agency
believes it would be prudent to improve the HIII-6C dummy to make it
more useful as an FMVSS No. 213 test device before making its use
mandatory. On September 9, 2011 (76 FR 55825), NHTSA issued a final
rule that permits, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either the
Hybrid II 6-year-old child dummy (H2-6C) or the HIII-6C dummy in
compliance tests of CRSs. Products that are currently certified as
meeting FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the H2-6C need not be removed
from the market, contrary to what Evenflo suggests. Therefore, we see
no need to suspend the use of HIC for the HIII-6C dummy.

d. UMTRI Positioning Procedure

    Generally described, the UMTRI procedure, developed for the HIII-6C
and HIII-10C dummies, first involves centering the belt-positioning
seat on the seating position of the test bench seat. A 30 lb (133
Newton (N)) force is then applied to push the belt-positioning seat
rearward into the test bench seat. The dummy is prepared with a lap
shield and a pelvis positioning pad before being positioned on the
belt-positioning seat. The lap shield is placed on the ATD's lap to
keep the lap belt from intruding into a gap that the Hybrid III ATDs
have between the pelvis flesh and thigh flesh. A pelvis positioning
pad, placed behind the dummy, is used to help position the dummy with a
slight slouch, which allows the dummy to adopt a posture similar to a
child seated in a relaxed position. The dummy is positioned and
centered on the belt-positioning seat or other CRS and is pushed
rearward by applying a 40 lb (177 N) force on the dummy's lower pelvis
and the thorax. The dummy's knees are placed pelvis width apart. These
steps help the dummy achieve a ``natural'' seating position on the
belt-positioning seat.
    The UMTRI dummy positioning procedure results in a more slouched
dummy when compared to the 2008 SNPRM procedure using the same belt-
positioning seat model. The slouched dummy, replicating a child in a
relaxed position, results in higher HIC values than if the dummy were
in a more upright position.
Comments
    All but one of the commenters were supportive of using the UMTRI
positioning procedure to test the HIII-6C and HIII-10C dummies in belt-
positioning seats, believing that the procedure would position the ATDs
in a more realistic seating posture than the 14 degree torso angle
positioning procedure. Several commenters did not support the UMTRI
positioning procedure's inclusion of a pelvis positioning pad.
    Evenflo opposed the inclusion of the UMTRI positioning procedure
into FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA had stated in the 2010 SNPRM that the UMTRI
dummy positioning procedure resulted in the highest torso angles (i.e.,
a more slouched dummy) when compared to the 2008 SNPRM procedure using
the same belt-positioning seat model, resulting in higher HIC values.
Consistent with that observation, in its comments Evenflo stated that
it believes that the UMTRI procedure yields higher HIC values, and that
some products that are currently compliant using the FMVSS No. 213
procedure may have to be removed from the market.
Agency Response
    After evaluating the comments and all available information, the
agency has decided to adopt the UMTRI dummy positioning procedure for
the HIII-6C and HIII-10C dummies in belt-positioning seats, with the
exception of the provision for use of the pelvis positioning pad for
the HIII-6C dummy.
    The UMTRI dummy positioning procedure was developed from a
laboratory study funded by NHTSA. In this study, UMTRI measured the

postures of 44 boys and girls 5 to 12 years in age in five different
belt-positioning seats and a vehicle seat.\33\ Using these data, UMTRI
developed a positioning procedure for the HIII-6C and the HIII-10C
dummies such that the dummy posture was representative of the average
posture of children of similar size in the belt-positioning seats. Due
to differences in child and dummy anthropometry, a pelvis positioning
pad placed behind the dummy was needed to help position the dummy with
a posture similar to that of a similar-size child seated in a relaxed
position in a belt-positioning seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Reed, M., Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K., Manary, M.,
Rupp, J., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume I: Effects of Vehicle
Seat and Belt Geometry on Belt Fit,'' University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) Report to NHTSA, September
2008, http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64459/1/102442.pdf (last accessed Sept. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined that the UMTRI procedure should be incorporated
into FMVSS No. 213 for the reasons explained in the 2010 SNPRM. The
UMTRI procedure is relatively easy to implement, and does not require
numerous positioning iterations as did the procedure proposed by the
2008 SNPRM. The procedure is very similar to the procedure NHTSA
currently uses to position ATDs in child restraints for the FMVSS No.
213 compliance tests. However, the UMTRI procedure includes additional
steps throughout the procedure, which facilitates more control of the
CRS, the ATD, and the positioning of the seat belt, which results in
reduced variability in the test procedure.
    The UMTRI procedure lets the belt-positioning booster design
dictate the posture of the dummy and the belt routing, so it results in
a more accurate assessment of the CRS's characteristics than a
procedure (proposed in the 2008 SNPRM) which tries to achieve a rigid
positioning of the dummy in the CRS. The UMTRI procedure lets the dummy
replicate a posture a child would adopt in a relaxed, seated position.
    Importantly, the UMTRI procedure showed reasonable repeatability
for all injury measures (with the exception of HIC). See discussion in
the 2010 SNPRM, 75 FR at 71652-71653. (The HIII-10C dummy's neck and
lumbar spine can be adjusted to different preset angles. To control for
extraneous variables, this final rule is specifying setting the
adjustment angle for the dummy's neck at SP-16 \34\ and that for the
lumbar spine at SP-12.\35\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Figure 20 of the ``Procedure for Assembly, Disassembly,
and Inspection (PADI) of the HIII-10C,'' August 2011, which has been
placed in the docket of the 49 CFR part 572 final rule published
today to accompany this final rule.
    \35\ See Figure 45 of the PADI document, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Evenflo's comment, this final rule does not apply
the UMTRI procedure to CRSs other than those tested with the HIII-6C
and the HIII-10C ATDs. With regard to the HIII-6C, this final rule does
not specify use of the pelvic positioning pad with the HIII-6C dummy
(see discussion in next section below). With regard to the HIII-10C,
this final rule does not adopt the HIC criterion. To our knowledge,
with those allowances in this final rule, no product that is currently
compliant using the FMVSS No. 213 procedure will become non-compliant.
Thus, we believe that Evenflo's concerns about the UMTRI procedure have
been addressed.
Pelvis Positioning Pad
    JPMA opposed the pelvis positioning pad for testing belt-
positioning seats with both the HIII-6C and the HIII-10C dummies,
stating that the pelvis positioning pad adds another variable into the
testing procedures and would increase the pre-test torso angle of the
dummies, which would increase the likelihood of hard chin-to-chest
contact, thus exacerbating the variability of HIC scores. Evenflo also
opposed the pelvis positioning pad, stating that, while there may be
some evidence that children may sit more reclined than the test dummy,
using the pad results in an artificial orientation that would be
inconsistent with manufacturer's instructions. Evenflo added that the
additional recline of the dummy may exacerbate the propensity for high
HIC scores as a result of excessive neck movement and/or hard chin-to-
chest contact during the dynamic test.
Agency Response Regarding the Pad and the HIII-6C
    This final rule does not specify the use of the pelvis positioning
pad for tests with the HIII-6C dummy.
    We recognize that some manufacturers are currently using the HIII-
6C dummy to certify the compliance of their CRSs to FMVSS No. 213, and
that they are positioning the dummy, and measuring HIC, as currently
required by FMVSS No. 213. The UMTRI positioning procedure without the
pelvis positioning pad is very similar to the method of positioning the
dummy in a belt-positioning seat specified in FMVSS No. 213. We have
decided to keep the UMTRI procedure as close as possible to the present
FMVSS No. 213 procedure, so that manufacturers currently using the
HIII-6C dummy to certify the compliance of their CRSs to FMVSS No. 213
will not have to alter their CRS designs to certify compliance using
the UMTRI positioning procedure with the HIII-6C dummy.
    We agree with JPMA and Evenflo that the presence of the pelvis pad
may result in a greater dummy torso angle than the current specified
positioning procedure in FMVSS No. 213. Since the agency sled tests
indicated that the dummy's torso angle affects the HIC values
measured--higher torso angle may result in higher and more variable HIC
values and a greater propensity for submarining--we agree with JPMA and
Evenflo that the pelvis positioning pad may exacerbate the propensity
for high HIC scores. So as not to magnify the HIC scores in this
manner, we will not use the pelvis positioning pad with the HIII-6C
ATD.
Agency Response Regarding the Pad and the HIII-10C
    This final rule will use the pelvis positioning pad for the HIII-
10C dummy in the UMTRI positioning procedure, as proposed in the 2010
SNPRM.
    Since this final rule does not apply the HIC criterion to tests
with the HIII-10C dummy, the concerns raised by the commenters that the
pelvis positioning pad results in higher HIC measures in tests with the
HIII-10C are moot.
    Evenflo believes that the pelvis positioning pad creates an
artificial orientation that would be inconsistent with manufacturer's
instructions, and contrary to NHTSA's general practice to test CRSs in
the manner set forth in the owner's manual. NHTSA disagrees that the
orientation is artificial. The UMTRI laboratory test data shows that
the pelvis positioning pad allows the dummy to adopt a posture similar
to that of a child of a similar size in a belt-positioning booster
seat. We believe that the pelvis positioning pad enhances the
representativeness of the HIII-10C ATD of children for whom the CRS is
recommended, and makes for a more robust assessment of the
effectiveness of the CRS in protecting a child occupant.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The desire to maximize the representativeness of the test
dummy must be balanced with other factors. With regard to the HIII-
6C dummy, HIC is still measured. NHTSA has determined that the HIC
measurements would not be realistic reflections of the ability of
the CRS to protect the child occupant if the dummy depicted a child
in a relaxed position, i.e., if the pelvic positioning pad were
used. Thus, for the HIII-6C, the agency has decided that, in order
to obtain a valid HIC measurement, we will not to use the pelvic
positioning pad to place the dummy in the ``relaxed'' position.

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

    This final rule also slightly modifies the specifications for the
pelvis positioning pad from that proposed in the 2010 SNPRM. The final
rule specifications are more general than the proposal, so as to
provide flexibility in selecting material for the pelvis positioning
pad while ensuring repeatable and reproducible performance. The
compression set specifications for the pelvis positioning pad proposed
in the 2010 SNPRM have not been adopted since they are not necessary
for ensuring that the pad has good repeatability in FMVSS No. 213
dynamic sled tests. The proposed range of acceptable compression
resistance in the compression-deflection test and the density of the
foam have been increased, to provide flexibility in selection of
material while ensuring performance that is repeatable and
reproducible.
    The pelvis positioning pad in this final rule is describes as: A
125 x 95 x 20 mm piece of closed cell (Type 2 according to ASTM D-1056-
07) foam or rubber with compression resistance between 9 to 17 pounds
per square inch (psi) in a compression-deflection test specified in
ASTM D-1056-07 and a density of 7 to 12.5 lb/ft\3\. This final rule
incorporates by reference ASTM D-1056-07 into FMVSS No. 213.
Lap Shield
    The UMTRI positioning procedure uses a lap shield to prevent the
lap belt from getting caught between the pelvis and thigh of the dummy.
We have decided to use a lap shield for the reasons set forth in the
2010 SNPRM,\37\ but have corrected the figure depicting the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ In our tests leading up to SNPRM No. 2, we did not use the
lap shield. In none of our tests did the lap belt get caught in the
gap between the pelvis and thigh. However, we have decided that the
lap shield should be specified for use in the FMVSS No. 213
compliance test to avoid the possibility that the lap belt could get
caught in the thigh/pelvis gap. Thus, in the regulatory text adopted
today, we specify use of the lap shield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JPMA supported the UMTRI procedure and use of the lap shield but
noted that the hip width of the HIII-10C is two inches wider than the
HIII-6C dummy. The commenter asked whether the 2010 SNPRM intended to
specify the use of the same lap shield for both dummies.
    Agency Response: UMTRI has conducted sled tests with the HIII-6C
and the HIII-10C dummies using the same lap shield for both dummies,
and the results indicate that the same size lap shield is sufficient
for both ATDs.\38\ However, NHTSA has examined the lap shield that was
depicted in proposed Figure 13 of the SNPRM and found that the
dimensions of the lap shield drawing were incorrect, as they were
significantly larger than the lap shield that UMTRI has used with the
dummies. We have revised the lap shield drawing for this final rule
with the correct dimensions.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The lap shield adheres to the dummy with double-sided tape,
and because of this and its flexibility, conforms to the shape of
the dummy's pelvis and thighs. Thus, only one lap shield is needed.
    \39\ See ex parte memorandum in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lap Belt Tension
    Concerning the specification for lap belt tension, the agency is
not adopting the proposed sections S10.2.3 (d)(1) through (7) from the
2010 SNPRM, and is instead adopting an instruction to simply attach the
vehicle belts and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. We did not adopt
the proposed instructions because they were specific to continuous
belts. FMVSS No. 213 currently does not specify the use of continuous
belts and thus the SNPRM's provisions for a continuous belt system were
not relevant to the FMVSS No. 213 belt system.
Applying the Procedure to Other ATDs
    In the 2010 SNPRM, the agency requested comment on whether the
UMTRI procedure should be extended to dummies other than the HIII-10C
and the HIII-6C dummies in belt-positioning seats. The current FMVSS
No. 213 procedure and the UMTRI procedure are very similar, except that
the UMTRI procedure includes additional steps controlling the
positioning of the CRS on the standard seat assembly, the positioning
of the dummy, and positioning of the seat belts.
    In its comment, JPMA stated that since its members have no testing
experience using the UMTRI procedure with other dummies, the JPMA does
not support using this procedure at this time with other dummies.
    NHTSA has decided not to apply the UMTRI procedure to ATDs other
than the HIII-6C and the HIII-10C dummies. We are not aware of a need
to apply the UMTRI procedure to the other ATDs. Some CRSs were tested
with the HIII-3C dummy. In those tests, the ATD was positioned on the
CRS using the current FMVSS No. 213 procedure. Changing the positioning
procedure for the HIII-3C dummy to use the UMTRI procedure would
require developing and evaluating a different size lap shield and
pelvis positioning pad, endeavors for which agency time and resources
are not available, and for which we do not see a need at this time.

e. LATCH Issues

    The agency proposed in the 2010 SNPRM that a harness-equipped CRS
tested with the HIII-10C dummy would be attached to the standard seat
assembly with the seat belt system and would not be tested with the
lower anchorages of the LATCH system. The agency proposed this
restriction based on a comment \40\ from the Alliance to the 2008 SNPRM
requesting the amendment. The Alliance explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0048-0008, page 7.

    When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 225, ``Child Restraint Anchorage
Systems,'' and made corresponding changes to FMVSS No. 213 to
require CRSs to comply with that standard when tested utilizing
Lower Anchorage and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH) anchorages, the
LATCH systems in vehicles were intended for use by children up to 48
pounds. No vehicle manufacturer recommends the use of LATCH anchors
with children that even approach the weight of the 10-year-old
dummy. And although some CRS manufacturers are offering harness-
equipped CRSs that are recommended for use by children that weigh up
to 65 pounds, it is the Alliance's understanding that they
explicitly instruct parents and caregivers to use the vehicle belts
rather than the LATCH anchorages when using such a CRS with a child
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that weighs more than 50 pounds.

    In the 2010 SNPRM, NHTSA also explained our view that, if NHTSA
would not test a CRS with LATCH using the HIII-10C even though the CRS
is recommended for use by children weighing over 29.5 kg (65 lb), then
we believed that the CRS should bear a label informing the consumer not
to attach the CRS with LATCH when restraining a child weighing more
than 65 lb. The consumer would be instructed to use the seat belt
system instead of LATCH. NHTSA proposed the labeling requirement to
reduce the likelihood that a consumer would use the CRS with LATCH
attachments when restraining heavier children and risk possible failure
of the interface or the anchor system.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ There is also disparate messaging to consumers that needs
to be addressed. Some CRS manufacturers of harness-equipped CRSs
that are recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb, explicitly
instruct the consumer to use the vehicle seat belt rather than the
LATCH lower anchorages with a child that weighs more than
approximately 50 lb. However, some CRS manufacturers do not prohibit
the use of LATCH for CRS installation even when used by children
weighing 65-80 lb. Vehicle manufacturers are largely silent about
the recommended child weight limit for LATCH installation. Some
vehicle models specify in the owner's manual a child weight limit of
40 to 48 lb for LATCH installation, while a few models specify a
higher weight limit for LATCH installation of up to 50 lb child
weight and permit tether anchor use for children weighing up to 60
lb. These differing weight limits have created confusion among
consumers.

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

Comments
    The proposal that the agency will not assess the CRS using LATCH
when conducting compliance tests of CRSs with the 10-year-old dummy was
generally supported by the commenters. In opposition was Sunshine Kids
(SSK), which believed that the HIII-10C should be used to test the
LATCH system of a CRS that has a stated capacity above 65 lb. SSK
believed that consumers will use the LATCH system even if there is a
label with a stated weight limit. SSK supported a certain dynamic
approach that would enable CRS manufacturers to produce harness-
equipped CRS for children up to 80 lb. JPMA also expressed a preference
to use, in the future, a ``dynamic test to define the labeling required
on the CRS, if any, and define the testing for installation with LATCH
based on the LATCH use limit specified on the CRS.'' JPMA indicated
that this approach is under development by an inter-industry working
group.
    There was widespread support for a label providing a weight limit
as a means of providing needed information to the consumer. Many urged
changes to the content of the labeling.\42\ Safe Ride News urged NHTSA
to consider that it must be the CRS manufacturer, not the vehicle
manufacturer, that determines the LATCH limit for each car seat model,
and CRS manufacturers should be required to determine such limits for
all models. The Alliance and the Association of Global Automakers
(Global Automakers) (formerly known as the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)) jointly urged the agency to adopt a
requirement that CRS labels provide a maximum weight recommendation
that is specific to each restraint model, based on the difference
between 65 lb and the actual weight of the restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ These will be discussed below. Main points involved: the
reference to the weight of the child alone versus the combined
weight of child and CRS; distinguishing lower anchorage use from
upper tether anchorage use; and allowing provision for securing
booster seats so they do not become projectiles in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several consumer advocates believed that a label was needed also to
address the different messages consumers receive from CRS and vehicle
manufacturers on LATCH usage. There is consumer uncertainty about the
strength of the LATCH anchors to withstand the forces of a CRS
restraining an older child (i.e., how long before LATCH should no
longer be used to attach the CRS and when the belts should be used
instead). CU stated: ``whether or not the research demonstrates the
ability of the LATCH anchors to withstand child masses greater than 65
pounds, a clear message needs to be provided to consumers as to what
such limits are.''
    The Alliance and many others were concerned that the proposed
wording that referred to a 65-lb child weight limit did not adequately
account for the weight of the CRS, and thus may be providing
misinformation. The Alliance indicated that the 2010 SNPRM's discussion
of the reasons for the 65-lb child weight limit did not recount
accurately enough the agency's analysis in the FMVSS No. 225 rulemaking
that supported the 15,000 N LATCH anchorage load requirement (response
to petitions for reconsideration, June 27, 2003, 68 FR 38208, 38218).
The commenter believed that, because both the terms ``child'' and
``child + CRS'' were used in the FMVSS No. 225 analyses, the 2010
SNPRM's reference to ``the child's weight of 65 lb'' alone was
inaccurate since the LATCH load requirements were developed using a
combined maximum ``child + CRS'' weight of 65 lb. The Alliance believed
the label should refer to the combined weight.
    The Alliance stated that referring to the combined weight would
also accord with vehicle manufacturer recommendations to discontinue
the use of LATCH when the child is in the 48-lb range. That is, it is
assumed that the weight of the CRS is about 15 lb, so a child in the
48-lb range, plus the typical weight of the CRS (15 lb), leads to a
combined weight of approximately 65 lb.
    Child restraint manufacturers differed in their response to the
proposal. JPMA expressed a preference for an approach that uses a
dynamic test to define the labeling required on CRS, but recognized
that such an approach is not developed at this time. Commenting on the
labeling proposal, the commenter recommended limiting the use of the
LATCH system to children weighing 48 lb or less, until the joint
industry study is completed. JPMA explained that the 48-lb
recommendation was based on a total mass of 65 lb attached to the LATCH
anchorages, which includes the mass of the CRS. The commenter stated
that the recommendation is supported by the agency's calculations for
the FMVSS No. 225 load requirements, and is consistent with most LATCH
use limits defined by vehicle manufacturers.
    Evenflo referred to work underway by vehicle and CRS manufacturers
seeking to determine the maximum force exerted on the lower anchors by
an occupied CRS under severe crash conditions. According to the
commenter, the intent is that CRSs ``exceeding this force threshold in
laboratory testing be labeled accordingly so to alert caregivers to
discontinue using the lower anchor system once the child reaches a
specified mass, which will vary based on the specific design of the
child restraint system.'' Evenflo stated that this would allow more
flexibility for CRS manufacturers to offer CRSs with internal harnesses
that can be used to higher weight limits when installed with the lower
anchors. Evenflo acknowledged that ``[i]n the interim, a more
conservative threshold based on occupant mass can be used,'' which
NHTSA understands to refer to the proposed label. Evenflo suggested
that the label(s) should include the alert symbol and warning caption
on a contrasting background and should be placed at or near the
location where the lower anchor system attaches to or enters the child
restraint to better draw attention to it.
    As noted above, Sunshine Kids (SSK) supported an alternative
approach rather than the proposed approach. It suggested that,
``[u]sing the dynamic capacity for lower anchors and top tether is a
more practical approach to determine the LATCH capacity of child
restraints.'' SSK stated that this approach would require all child
restraints to be tested to a structural validation test that would
measure the lower anchor load using the largest stated occupant
capacity of the CRS for the dummy in the test. SSK provided a research
paper in which 12 kN was assumed as a safe dynamic load limit for the
LATCH lower anchors in NCAP-type crash testing, when using a size-
appropriate dummy for a particular CRS model. SSK stated: ``[L]oad
limitation is designed into the structural assembly of the Radian
[produced by SSK], effectively limiting the Lower Anchor loads to 12 KN
for any ATD configuration under 35 mph 47 G sled pulse loads.'' The
commenter believed that by requiring all CRSs to be tested under what
the commenter believed to be a worst case loading, the consumer would
be assured that the LATCH system and the CRS are designed around a
maximum dynamic load that, the commenter believed, will not exceed the
structural limits of the vehicle. SSK believed that this approach will
allow the most freedom to design restraints that can fit large occupant
weights and can work within the proposed dynamic limit of 12 kN for
each lower anchor attachment in the vehicle.

    Britax requested the proposed warning language be revised to permit
the use of LATCH anchors for belt-positioning seats equipped with
LATCH. Britax stated that some CRS manufacturers recommend the use of
LATCH with the boosters solely to secure the booster, to ensure that if
unoccupied, the booster will not become a flying projectile (and injure
other vehicle occupants) in a vehicle crash. (This suggestion was
echoed by JPMA and the Alliance.) Britax added that the occupant of the
belt-positioning seat is secured by the vehicle seat belts and those
vehicle seat belts would bear the occupant load in a motor vehicle
crash, so the child occupant in the booster seat does not load the
LATCH anchors.
    SafetyBeltSafe asked that the label permit the top tether anchorage
to be used to a higher weight of child occupant than the lower LATCH
anchorages. The commenter stated that vehicle manufacturers often state
or imply that 40 lb is the top weight that is acceptable for tether
anchor use, but that Transport Canada testing has tested heavy dummies
in seats using tether anchors and lower anchors with no failures. In
its comment, Safe Ride News pointed out that while lower anchors have a
functional alternative in the form of seat belts, the tether system
does not usually have an alternative method. Safe Ride News asked NHTSA
to be mindful of extending the option of tether use whenever possible,
since ``adding a tether to installation greatly increases the
performance of a forward-facing car seat.'' The commenter encouraged
NHTSA ``to be careful in any rulemaking regarding testing and labeling
to be certain that it does not inadvertently discourage or
unnecessarily limit tether use.''
    That view about the benefits of using the tether anchor to higher
weights than the lower LATCH anchorages have been echoed by other
parties in the context of other CRS programs. On February 25, 2011,
NHTSA published a document requesting comments on a CRS-to-vehicle fit
program that the agency was considering establishing under NHTSA's New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP).\43\ Some commenters to that NCAP
document suggested that the upper tether should be permitted for use
with heavier/older children in harnessed CRSs since real world data
indicates benefits of tether use and no adverse effects when used for
heavier children. Some indicated that tether use should be permitted
for children weighing up to 65 lb (child occupant weight alone, not
combined with CRS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 76 FR 10637, Docket NHTSA-2010-00062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    All relevant issues raised by the commenters on the LATCH issue are
addressed below.
1. The Label \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The following requirements apply only to CRSs equipped with
an internal harness to restrain the child and with components to
attach to a LATCH 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 agency believes that a label on the CRS with a clear and
consistent message to consumers regarding lower LATCH anchorage use is
an appropriate means of reducing the likelihood that CRSs are attached
to the vehicle seat with lower LATCH anchorages when occupied by
children too heavy for the lower LATCH anchors. This would help prevent
lower LATCH anchor loads from exceeding their required strength level
specified in FMVSS No. 225. Such consistent labeling will reduce
confusion regarding LATCH use amongst parents and caregivers and result
in reduced misuse.
2. Combined Weight
    While the 2010 SNPRM proposed the label to have a 65-lb child
weight limit, the agency agrees with the Alliance and others that the
65-lb weight limit should be the combined weight of the child and the
weight of the CRS. In calculating the appropriate strength requirements
of FMVSS No. 225, NHTSA based its calculations on an assumption that a
combined weight of 65 lb (from the CRS + child) would be attached to
the LATCH anchors (68 FR at 38218). This matter is of more significance
today than before because CRSs have substantially increased in mass
since the LATCH rulemaking, and children are riding in harnessed CRSs
longer. At the time of the LATCH rulemaking, CRSs weighed on average
about 15 lb and children were in harnessed CRSs until about age 4. Now,
CRSs are heavier, with some weighing up to 30 lb, and there are
harnessed CRSs marketed for children who weigh up to 80 lb.
3. Account for Weight of CRS
    Similar to the Alliance, JPMA recommended that the label should
state a weight limit for the child of 48 lb, rather than a child weight
of 65 lb, to be more consistent with the analysis performed by the
agency in setting the FMVSS No. 225 strength requirements. We concur
with the commenter's view that the NPRM's reference to the child weight
of 65 lb was not correct, the NPRM reference should have been to the
combined weight of the CRS and the child. We note, though, that while
having all CRSs refer to a single child weight of 48 lb has simplicity,
there are some safety concerns with such an approach. Currently, there
are some very heavy CRSs being produced, some weighing nearly 30 lb. If
those very heavy CRSs had a label indicating that they could be used
with LATCH with children up to 48 lb, the LATCH anchors could be
overloaded in a crash (30 lb CRS+48 lb child).
    Safe Ride News also raised concerns about a requirement that
required all CRSs to reference a singular child weight. The commenter
thought it would be confusing if there were, say, a manufacturer of a
``high-weight harness seat'' that intended its seat to only be used
with LATCH with children up to 50 lb. If NHTSA required the CRS to be
labeled with a warning against use with LATCH when the child reaches 65
lb, the consumer could be misled to believe the CRS can be used until
the child reaches 65 lb. Safe Ride News believed that clear labeling
regarding upper weight limits for each model is a better solution.
    After considering all the comments on this issue, NHTSA has decided
to modify the proposed label requirement, to take a more direct
approach than referencing a single weight to be included on all CRS
labels. As explained above, we are using combined weight (CRS + child)
rather than child weight alone. The label will be unique to each CRS
model equipped with an internal harness, for which the combined weight
of CRS and the maximum recommended child weight for use with internal
harness exceeds 65 lb. Such CRSs will have to be labeled with
information instructing the consumer that the LATCH lower anchorages
may be used to attach the CRS to the vehicle seat when restraining a
child weighing x lb or less using the CRS's internal harness. The ``x''
value is 65 lb minus the weight of the CRS. The x value indicates the
maximum weight of the child for which the LATCH lower anchorages can be
used such that the combined weight (weight of CRS + child) does not
exceed 65 lb. We believe that this approach is clearer to the consumer,
because the caregiver is likely to know the weight of the child better
than the ``combined'' weight of the CRS + child. The clear and direct
information will reduce the risk that the consumer will keep the child
attached to the vehicle via the LATCH lower anchorages beyond the
design parameters of the LATCH system.

4. Top Tether
    A significant portion of the harm to children resulting from motor
vehicle crashes could be prevented by the tether. Accident data from
NHTSA's NASS CDS data files from 1995-2007 indicate that 39 percent of
AIS 2+ injuries to children 0-12 years of age restrained in rear
seating positions in frontal crashes were to the head and face, with 60
percent of these injuries resulting from contact with the seat and back
support. Sled test data indicates that use of the upper tether reduces
head excursions of the occupant restrained in the CRS and therefore,
reduces the likelihood of head impacts against the vehicle
structure.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Legault, F. Garndner, B., Vincent, A., ``The Effect of Top
Tether Strap Configurations on Child Restraint Performance,''
Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE No. 973304, 1997. In addition,
the quantifiable safety benefits that NHTSA estimated will accrue
from the LATCH rulemaking was due to the tether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tethers provide much more secure attachment of child restraints
compared to being attached by the seat belt only or lower LATCH anchors
only. In particular, they provide more rigid attachment at the top part
of the child restraint, so that the CRS can ``ride down'' the crash
while the vehicle is crushing. This considerably reduces excursion of
the child's head relative to the vehicle interior, so the head is far
less likely to hit other parts of the vehicle interior--the most likely
cause of serious injury to a properly restrained child. A study in New
South Wales, Australia found that top tether use was extremely
effective in reducing injuries to children in CRSs.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Paine M., Vertsonis, H., ``Surveys of Child Restraint Use
in South Wales,'' 2001 ESV Conference, NHTSA, 2001, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv17/proceed/00237.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRSs are required by FMVSS No. 213 to meet a minimum head excursion
limit (a 32-inch requirement) without use of the tether. CRSs must also
meet an enhanced head excursion requirement (28-inch) where a tether
may be used to meet the more stringent requirement. Some child
passenger safety consumer advocates suggest that the risks associated
with the tether not holding in a crash are small \47\ and so the use of
the top tether should not be limited by the weight of the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Comment from Safe Ride News on ``Open Letter to the
Curriculum Committee: Tethers Need Special Attention in Next
Update,'' http://saferidenews.com/srndnn/srndnn/CPSTsProfessionals/EditorialsfromSafeRideNews/OpenLettertotheNCPSBCurriculumCommittee/tabid/281/Default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there are demonstrable benefits associated with a top
tether, we are not convinced that tether use should be unlimited, i.e.
that there need not be any weight restriction on use of the tether. Not
enough is known about the consequences of not having any weight
restriction on the use of the tether anchorage. Field data do not
indicate any failure of tether anchors, likely because only few higher-
weight rated harnessed-CRSs are in use by children weighing more than
50 lb. We believe that more field and research data are needed to
determine reasonable limits for the combined child + CRS weight, to
ensure that the tether anchor does not fail in most crash conditions,
and to explore the consequences that may result from overloading the
tether anchorage. The agency has initiated a research program to
address weight limits for LATCH use, and the Alliance, JPMA, and Global
Automakers also have been researching LATCH use weight limits. The
agency will be able to better assess weight limits for the top tether
after the research is complete. For now, the agency is not requiring a
commensurate label on weight limits for use of the top tether.
4. Testing With the HIII-10C
    We agree with the Alliance and others that the LATCH load
requirements in FMVSS No. 225 (68 FR 38218) were developed to ensure
that the vehicle LATCH anchorages would be able to withstand forces
resulting from a 65 lb mass in a severe crash of a vehicle into a rigid
barrier (peak CRS acceleration of 48.4 gs). Using the HIII-10C dummy
(weighing almost 80 lb) to test the CRS using the lower LATCH
attachments could exceed the assumptions behind the strength
requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Accordingly, we believe that use of the
ATD in such tests of the CRS would be unreasonable, since the LATCH
system as a whole was not designed with such use in mind. Therefore,
the agency will not attach CRSs using lower LATCH anchors in compliance
tests when using the HIII-10C dummy. (See newly adopted paragraph S5(f)
in the regulatory text.) However, as explained earlier, the top tether
is used for meeting the enhanced head excursion requirements in FMVSS
No. 213 and the agency will test harness equipped CRSs with and without
tether attachment when using the HIII-10C dummy.
    In coming to this position, we are mindful to view the LATCH system
as a whole. It would not make sense to require CRSs to meet a LATCH
performance requirement if vehicle manufacturers, for good reason, are
not permitting the CRSs to be installed in their vehicles using LATCH.
We also must be mindful that developments in CRS technologies must be
compatible with vehicle technologies, and vice versa, when it comes to
child passenger safety, since the interaction between CRSs and the
vehicle in protecting occupants is crucial. (Incompatibilities between
CRS and vehicle designs were the reasons NHTSA commenced the LATCH
rulemaking which resulted in FMVSS No. 225.)
    In response to SSK which wanted us to test CRSs with the HIII-10C
when attached to LATCH in part due to concerns about consumer misuse,
the label required by this final rule will reduce the likelihood of
consumers misusing the LATCH lower anchorages to attach harness-
equipped CRSs for which the LATCH system was not designed. This rule
requires CRSs to provide information about lower LATCH use limits that
is very specific to each CRS model. Consumers will be provided
information on lower LATCH use limits that is clearer than ever. This
clear instruction will facilitate the consumer's understanding--and
that of any child seat fitting station technicians assisting them--of
when they should transition from the LATCH system and reattach the CRS
using the seat belt system.
    Evenflo also expressed concern about misuse, but noted that, to
date, it was unaware of any real world data to suggest that misuse of
this type was an issue. The agency did not receive data or comments on
this issue from any other commenters. The agency believes that the
label required by the final rule to be on the CRS, which provides a
clear and consistent message regarding lower LATCH use, improves the
current situation where no information or inconsistent information is
typically provided the consumer. The information will help ensure that
CRSs are not attached using lower LATCH anchors to the vehicle seat
when occupied by children of weights outside of the design parameters
of the lower LATCH system.
    As noted above, the agency also has initiated a research program to
address various issues with LATCH, and will be examining the weight
limit for LATCH use. NHTSA also is aware of the project of the
Alliance, the JPMA, and the Global Automakers to determine LATCH use
limits.\48\ However, an alternative to specify LATCH weight limits
based on a dynamic assessment, as suggested by JPMA, Sunshine Kids, and
Evenflo, is not developed at this time and may not be available in the
foreseeable future. In the absence of a viable dynamic test or other
approach, the engineering calculations used in the

FMVSS No. 225 rulemaking, supra, to determine the LATCH load limits are
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ This work has been on-going since mid-2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency disagrees with the suggestion of JPMA, Evenflo, SSK, and
Safe Ride News that CRS manufacturers should have the sole
responsibility of determining the maximum weight limit for LATCH usage
when this limit exceeds a combined weight of 65 lb. While the agency
does not want to inhibit innovation, the agency believes that more
research needs to be conducted in order to allow a higher weight limit
for lower LATCH anchor use than the anchorage strength requirement in
FMVSS No. 225 when compatibilities between the CRS and the vehicle are
at issue.
    Although SSK has stated that it has developed CRSs with load
limiters that result in reduced lower LATCH anchor loads in sled tests,
we know that crash pulse, the geometry and location of the vehicle
anchors, the weight of the child and the CRS, and the unique design of
the CRS are some of the factors affecting the anchor loads and we do
not have enough information to conclude that these CRSs will keep
anchor loads below the anchor strength of the vehicle in all
configurations and uses in vehicles.\49\ The agency believes that a
well-considered assessment of these new CRSs would likely entail
developing new procedures and requirements for this type of CRS. Such a
change in the standard is out of the scope and timeframe of this
rulemaking.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The April 11, 2011 joint comment from the Alliance and
Global Automakers (p. 3) stated that it would support a provision in
FMVSS No. 213 that would allow CRS manufacturers to certify their
CRSs to a higher maximum weight rating (child+CRS greater than 65
lb) in certain circumstances, with the CRS attached using LATCH or
with LATCH+belts simultaneously. The comment stated ``This
certification could be based on [an] FMVSS 213-type sled test with
modifications to the pulse, test buck or other aspects of the FMVSS
213 test as appropriate for this purpose. In the absence of such
certification, testing of restraints that are intended to
accommodate larger children (CRS+child weighing more than 65 pounds)
should not be tested under FMVSS [No.] 213 using the LATCH system.''
This comment indicates that determining that a CRS is indeed
compatible with LATCH in a range of vehicles, crash situations, and
CRS use conditions involves a complex evaluation of the factors we
mentioned and perhaps more.
    \50\ The risk of allowing such CRSs at this time when not enough
is known about the compatibility factors is the increased risk of
anchorage failure in a crash, which can be catastrophic to the child
occupant. The risk of catastrophic failure can be avoided by having
CRSs for heavier children labeled with an instruction to the
consumer to use the vehicle seat belt system when the child attains
a certain weight. Seat belts are a readily available, safe
alternative for the consumer to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency will continue to address various outstanding issues with
LATCH in a research program we initiated in 2011. The agency will also
examine closely the results from the ongoing research efforts by the
industry working group to decide LATCH issues in the future, as
appropriate.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The April 11, 2011 joint comment from the Alliance and
Global Automakers presented certain scenarios (pp. 2-3) and asked
NHTSA to address them in developing consumer labeling and FMVSS No.
213 testing protocols. For the most part, these comments are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this final rule, harness-equipped CRSs, for which the
combined weight of the CRS and the maximum recommended child weight for
internal harness use exceeds 65 lb, will not be attached to the
standard seat assembly using lower LATCH anchors when tested with a
dummy whose weight is greater than the manufacturer-recommended child
weight limit for LATCH use. (See S5(f) of the regulatory text.) For
example, a harness-equipped CRS weighing 15 lb and recommended for
children weighing up to 65 lb, will be attached to the standard seat
with a lap belt when tested with the weighted 6-year old dummy since
the ATD weighs 65 lb. The weight of the ATD will be greater than the
manufacturer-recommended child weight for LATCH use (under this final
rule, the label will indicate that the CRS may be used with LATCH lower
anchorages up to a child weight of 50 lb (65 lb - 15 lb = 50 lb). On
the other hand, when tested with the HIII-6C dummy (which weighs 48
lb), the CRS will be tested separately with the lap belt attachment and
with the LATCH attachment.
6. Boosters
    In response to Britax and the JPMA, we agree that a child in a
belt-positioning booster seat is restrained by the vehicle seat belt
and that the LATCH lower anchors will not be excessively loaded if the
booster happens to have LATCH attachments. The agency is not aware of
any information indicating the use of belt-positioning seats with LATCH
is a risk. Therefore, we are excluding belt-positioning seats from the
LATCH maximum recommended weight label.
7. Other
    1. In response to Evenflo's suggestion to include an alert symbol
and warning caption on a contrasting background on the label and to
place the label at or near the location where the lower anchor system
attaches to or enters the child restraint, this final rule specifies
standardized language that should appear on the label and instruction
manual of each CRS. The inclusion of the new language on the label will
modify the current section S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) regarding LATCH usage. This
label is specified to have a capitalized statement ``WARNING! DEATH or
SERIOUS INJURY can occur'' according to S5.5.2(g)(1) and a yellow
heading area with the word ``warning'' and the alert symbol in black
according to S5.5.2(k)(3)(1). With regard to location, FMVSS No. 213
already specifies the recommended locations for labels which are meant
to be visible to the user.
    2. In response to a comment from Advocates, we disagree with the
suggestion to state on the label that LATCH is the preferred method of
CRS attachment for children. LATCH was promulgated to simplify CRS
installation and to reduce the continued high incidence of misuse and
incorrect installation of child safety seats. However, not all vehicles
in the current fleet are equipped with LATCH and not all seating
positions in a vehicle are equipped with full LATCH systems. Therefore,
seat belts are still used by caregivers to install CRSs in some seating
positions. We believe that properly-installed CRSs provide high levels
of safety whether installed using LATCH or the vehicle seat belts, and
making the suggested statement on the label is unsupported.

f. Lead Time

    As proposed in the 2005 SNPRM, this final rule is effective two
years after the date of publication of this final rule, meaning that
CRSs manufactured on or after that 2-year date are required to meet the
requirements of this final rule. Optional early compliance with the
requirements is permitted. We believe there is good cause for providing
two as opposed to one-year for the effective date. CRS manufacturers
will have to assess their products' conformance to FMVSS No. 213 when
tested with the new ATD, and will have to gear up to meet new labeling
and other requirements as well.
    In its comment on the 2005 NPRM, Graco had referred to the spikes
observed in the dummy's HIC measurements and suggested that three years
of lead time should be provided to allow manufacturers time to gain
experience with the HIII-10C dummy, and to make any necessary product
design changes. Since this final rule is not adopting the HIC
requirement, we believe Graco's concerns about needing time to work
with HIC are addressed.
    Dorel commented in 2005 expressing concerns about an unavailability
of the HIII-10C. We believe many manufacturers are already testing with
the HIII-10C dummy and that the final

version of the HIII-10C dummy is very similar to that currently
available. This issue is also discussed in the accompanying 49 CFR part
572 final rule.
    Graco was concerned about having additional lead time to get
adjusted to testing with the HIII-6C. We believe that needing more time
to adjust to this ATD is no longer an issue as the agency has permitted
manufacturers the choice of NHTSA testing their child restraints with
either the H2-6C dummy or the HIII-6C dummy until further notice.

g. Mass Limit

    The NPRM requested comment on eliminating the 4.4 kg mass limit for
belt-positioning boosters in S<IP_ADDRESS>, Direct restraint, of FMVSS No.
213. That section states: ``Except for a child restraint system whose