S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G)) require that instrumentation and data processing
be in conformance with SAE Recommended Practice J211 (June 1980),
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests.'' This final rule updates the
reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995).

e. Section S5.9(a)

    The first sentence of S5.9(a) states: ``Each add-on child restraint
anchorage system manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, other than
a car bed, harness and belt-positioning seat, shall have components
permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be
securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 . . .'' (emphasis
added). It is clear from the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule
adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), that NHTSA was
referring to child restraint systems and not to child restraint
anchorage systems. (There are no ``add-on'' child restraint anchorage
systems and car beds, harnesses and belt-positioning seats are not
child restraint anchorage systems.) This final rule removes the word
``anchorage'' to correct this error.

f. Table for S5.3.2

    Currently, the Table for S5.3.2 in FMVSS No. 213 shows the required
means of installation for different types of add-on child restraint
systems. The November 2, 2020 NPRM proposed amending the table to show
the incorporation of a Type 2 seat belt installation requirement, among
other things. This final rule makes a further change, a housekeeping
measure. The table currently shows one column for attachment to the
child restraint anchorage system without explicitly showing a provision
for tether use if needed, unlike the Type 1 seat belt installation
entry that has two columns (showing a Type 1 installation without the
tether, and a Type 1 installation with the tether, if needed). We are
formatting the Table for S5.3.2 so that it likewise has two similar
columns (showing an installation using the lower anchorages of a child
restraint anchorage system without the tether, and an installation with
the tether, if needed). These installations reflect the dynamic test
procedure in S6.1.2 for attachment with the child restraint anchorage
system, to show that the procedure involves attachments with and
without the tether. This formatting into two columns aligns the table
with FMVSS No. 213a, where the installation of the child restraint
system is segmented into installation with lower anchorage attachments
without the use of a tether, and installation with lower anchorage
attachments with the use of a tether, if needed. These changes to the
Table for S5.3.2 relate only to formatting and do not change any
current substantive requirement.

g. Tether Tension Range

    Currently, FMVSS No. 213 indicates a tension for the tether as not
less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N (S6.1.2(d)(i) and (ii)), which
the NPRM had also proposed. During the tests with the updated standard
seat assembly, NHTSA found that in some cases the tethers could not be
tightened to the proposed tension range because the updated standard
seat assembly has a thinner seat back cushion (2 inches) than the
current FMVSS No. 213 seat. This final rule adopts a tension range of
not less than 45 N and not more than 53.5 N. This lower range in
tension values for the tether are based on tether tensions achieved in
the tests conducted at VRTC and therefore are practicable. FMVSS No.
213a for side impact protection, which has the same standard seat
design, adopted these new tension ranges for tether installations.

h. Clarifying FMVSS No. 213a and the 40 lb Cut Off

    On June 30, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule \169\ adding FMVSS
No. 213a for CRS side impact protection. This new standard applies to
``add-on child restraint systems that are either recommended for use by
children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb)
regardless of height, or by children in a height range that includes
heights up to 1100 millimeters regardless of weight, except for car
beds and harnesses.'' NHTSA believes some readers might ask whether
``up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds)'' and ``up to 1100 millimeters'' are
meant to include 18 kilograms (40 pounds) and 1100 millimeters (43
inches). The answer is no, the ``up to'' term was not meant to include
either 18 kilograms (40 pounds) or 1100 millimeters (43 inches). To
make this clearer, the agency plans to clarify the wording of FMVSS No.
213a in the upcoming NPRM. The NPRM would propose to amend FMVSS No.
213a's ``up to'' language to instead state: ``less than 18 kilograms
(40 pounds)''

and ``less than 1100 millimeters (43 inches)'' so that it is clear that
the 18 kg (40 lb) and 1100 mm (43 inches) values are not included in
the applicability.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 87 FR 39234.
    \170\ This change would reflect NHTSA's original intent, as
shown in several instances in the June 2022 final rule. See, e.g.,
87 FR at 39244, col. 2 (``NHTSA also explained in the NPRM that the
FMVSS No. 213a side impact test replicates a near-side crash as
experienced by a child under 18.1 kg (40 lb) in a safety seat''); 87
FR 39244, col.3. (``No commenter objected to NHTSA's requiring
manufacturers of booster seats to limit use of boosters to children
weighing at least 18.1 kg (40 lb).'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Beyond the Scope of the Rulemaking

    There were many comments on matters beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. NHTSA has discussed a number of these in various parts of
this preamble and has noted that the agency is not addressing the
matters further in this final rule. The agency will consider the
comments as ideas for potential future changes to FMVSS No. 213 and
NHTSA child passenger safety programs. In this section, we list some
other matters that were raised by commenters, and for some, we offer
our observations on the topic. This list is not all-inclusive of the
comments that were out of scope of this rulemaking, or the thoughts
commenters had on how NHTSA should proceed on various topics.

Retractor

    Volvo comments that, when assessing belt-positioning (booster) seat
performance, it is important to simulate the function of the vehicle
belt retractor in a realistic way. Volvo believes that the operation of
the belt retractor is especially important when assessing the belt-
positioning seat's dynamic performance in a crash. Volvo states that
the slack (film-spool effect) introduced by the retractor is not
present with the fixed attachment that is used in the FMVSS No. 213
current standard seat assembly today. Volvo stated that UMTRI has
developed a surrogate retractor and performed a test using the FMVSS
No. 213 standard seat assembly and that the test results showed similar
kinematics to those achieved with a production seat belt.\171\ Volvo
added that, UMTRI \172\ used the surrogate retractor in a comparative
study of belt-positioning seats and concluded that tests with the
surrogate retractor were as repeatable as the tests performed with
current FMVSS No. 213 conditions. Volvo encouraged NHTSA to include a
vehicle retractor function in the FMVSS No. 213 updated standard seat
assembly and that this would better represent vehicle crash tests when
using the standard seat assembly. SRN also urged NHTSA to consider
using a shoulder belt that replicates the spooling effect of a real
vehicle seat belt (such as the surrogate belt developed by UMTRI),\173\
rather than a fixed belt, to better represent a real crash when
performing a FMVSS No. 213 dynamic sled test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Manary MA, Klinich K, Boyle K, Orton N, Eby B, Weir Q.
Development of a surrogate shoulder belt retractor for sled testing
of booster seats, DOT HS 812 660, NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2019a.
Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812660_development-surrogate-shoulder-belt-retractor-for-sled-testing-of-booster-seats.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \172\ Klinich KD; Jones MH, Manary MA, Ebert SH, Boyle KJ, Malik
L, Orton NR, Reed MP. Investigation of potential design and
performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and dynamic
testing. DOT HS 812 919. NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2020 Link:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July 26,
2023].
    \173\ Klinich KD; Jones MH, Manary MA, Ebert SH, Boyle KJ, Malik
L, Orton NR, Reed MP. Investigation of potential design and
performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and dynamic
testing. DOT HS 812 919. NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2020 Link:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July 26,
2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

    While including a retractor in FMVSS No. 213 to test belt-
positioning seats is out of scope of this rulemaking, NHTSA notes here
that the agency has been highly interested in including a retractor in
the regulation. In fact, NHTSA has funded the research
174 175 to which the commenters refer (Volvo and SRN), to
develop a surrogate seat belt retractor to achieve a more realistic
shoulder belt performance compared to the static (fixed) shoulder belt
currently used in FMVSS No. 213. If assessments show the surrogate
retractor is suitable for incorporation into NHTSA compliance tests,
NHTSA plans to propose adopting it into FMVSS No. 213
176 177 in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Manary, M.A., Klinich, K.D., Boyle, K.J., Orton, N.R.,
Eby, B., & Weir, Q. (2016, January) Development of a Surrogate
Shoulder Belt Retractor for Sled Testing (Report No. UMTRI-2016-21).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812660_development-surrogate-shoulder-belt-retractor-for-sled-testing-of-booster-seats.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \175\ Klinich KD; Jones MH, Manary MA, Ebert SH, Boyle KJ, Malik
L, Orton NR, Reed MP. Investigation of potential design and
performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and dynamic
testing. DOT HS 812 919. NHTSA, Washington, DC, USA, 2020 Link:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July 26,
2023].
    \176\ NHTSA has published preliminary drawings of the surrogate
retractor which can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0055-0017.
    \177\ NHTSA tests using the surrogate retractor can be found in
NHTSA's Research Vehicle Test Database at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/research-testing-databases#/vehicle. Test numbers
V10063 through V10064 and V10325 through V10339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Height-Less Devices

    Volvo commented that belt-positioning products should not be
categorized as belt-positioning (booster) seats or used as child
restraints in cars unless they elevate the child and shorten the seat
cushion length, better ensuring the child is in an optimal position in
a crash and is not slouching. Volvo stated that due to limitations
inherent to the standard's seat assembly (replicating the vehicle
environment and limitations in dummy sensitivity), some of these
devices have passed FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements even
though they do not elevate the child or shorten the seat cushion length
while seated. Volvo states: `` `Foldable devices' that do not boost,
but have passed FMVSS 213 certification, resulted in submarining \178\
when in vehicle crash tests (Tylko et al., 2016).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Submarining occurs when the pelvis of the occupant slides
below the lap belt allowing it to load the abdomen, potentially
resulting in internal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volvo states that a common concern for ``height-less booster''
types of devices is that they interfere with the seat belt function and
do not reposition the child into the seat belt like booster seats do.
Volvo states that when used in a crash, height-less devices will
straighten the seat belt out between the seat belt anchorage points,
resulting in seat belt slack that will influence the kinematics of the
child in a crash. If the rerouting is extensive, slack will be
introduced as the belt is straightened out, resulting in delayed
coupling of the child to the seat belt. The commenter believes that
these height-less devices place the lap belt further forward on the
thighs, with no direct contact with the pelvis, and that this placement
will result in delayed restraint of the pelvis leading to poor
kinematics and increased loadings on the child. Volvo is also concerned
that a height-less device can result in the child not being restrained
over the strong parts of the body, since the child is not raised to the
correct position.
    Volvo believes height-less devices do not adhere to the protection
principles of a CRS and are not booster seats or CRSs. The commenter
states that ECE R129 addresses the height of the booster by requiring a
certain angle of the lap belt and specifying that the lap belt must
pass over the top of the thigh, just touching the fold with the pelvis.
Volvo suggests that NHTSA add requirements addressing the shortcomings
of heigh-less devices, including requirements for

lap belt positioning (that the device must result in the lap belt
positioned on top of the thigh and in contact with the pelvis) and for
enabling the child to bend their legs (to avoid being out of position
in a crash by slouching).
    Similarly, CHOP comments that the primary role of a belt-
positioning booster seat is to adapt the vehicle seating geometry and
restraints, which are designed for adults, to the child. CHOP explained
that the nature of a booster seat, which raises the child, is intended
to account for both anthropometry and biomechanical differences between
children and adults. CHOP states that the boost provided by the
structure of the traditional belt-positioning seats is needed for seat
belt fit reasons but also to avoid slouching, allowing children to bend
their legs over the front edge of the belt-positioning seat. CHOP
states that its research using the PIPER \179\ pediatric human body
model illustrates important differences in kinematics between optimally
positioned occupants and those positioned in more naturalistic and
realistic postures.180 181 CHOP states it is important to
assess, using pediatric human volunteers, how these novel designs
influence child posture and not limit assessment only to dummy
evaluation in sled/crash tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ The PIPER Child model is a finite element model was
developed to scale the model for children between at least 1.5 and 6
years of age. It was created as part of the Piper Project Link:
http://piper-project.org/about (last accessed March 21, 2023).
    \180\ Maheshwari J, Sarfare S, Falciani C, Belwadi A. Analysis
of Kinematic Response of Pediatric Occupants Seated in Naturalistic
Positions in Simulated Frontal Small Offset Impacts: With and
Without Automatic Emergency Braking. Stapp Car Crash J. 2020
Nov;64:31-59. PMID: 3363600. Link to request access: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2499437312?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \181\ Maheshwari J, Sarfare S, Falciani C, Belwadi A. Pediatric
occupant human body model kinematic and kinetic response variation
to changes in seating posture in simulated frontal impacts--with and
without automatic emergency braking. Traffic Inj Prev. 2020 Oct
23:1-5. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2020.1825699. Epub ahead of print.
PMID: 33095067. Link to request access from authors: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344843077_ [last accessed July 26,
2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CHOP states that its preliminary work examining the performance of
height-less devices revealed important differences between static belt
fit and dynamic belt performance. CHOP noted that height-less devices
route the belt away from the soft abdomen and the neck similar to
traditional belt-positioning seats but do so without the ``boost'' in
an effort to reduce the size and mass of the product and increase the
convenience of the restraint. CHOP explains that both sled tests and
computational modeling using the PIPER human body model demonstrated
delayed contact between the lap belt and the pelvis due to the fact
that the lap belt is positioned far forward on the thighs.\182\ CHOP
states that by using kinematic rather than kinetic metrics to assess
submarining, such as change in torso angle (which is the angle made by
shoulder to hip to knee), this research identified differences between
the height-less devices and traditional belt-positioning seats that may
indicate a potential for suboptimal kinematics that current dummies and
FMVSS No. 213 test modes may not be able to reproduce. CHOP believes
future research should further develop evaluation metrics that can
accurately predict how real children sustain injuries--using advanced
technology such as computational human body models ``to generate an
environment where innovation is encouraged but unintended consequences
are avoided.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Belwadi et al, ``Efficiency of booster seat design on the
response of the Q6 ATD in stimulated frontal sled impacts''
Protection of Children in Cars Conference, Munich, Germany, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response

    While additional requirements for height-less devices and belt-
positioning seats are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, NHTSA
appreciates the commenters' views. The agency believes a booster seat's
effectiveness comes from, in part, its ability to elevate a child in a
vehicle relative to a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt to achieve proper
belt fit. NHTSA has sponsored a research program \183\ as a first step
toward possibly determining a minimum boosting height for CRSs
recommended for children weighing more than 18.2 kg (40 lb). The
program is evaluating, among other things, the need to specify a
minimum boosting height that would provide enough lift to position the
child to achieve a beneficial seat belt fit and allow bending of the
knees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Klinich, K.D., Jones, M.H., Manary, M.A., Ebert, S.H.,
Boyle, K.J., Malik, L., Reed, M.P. (2020, April). Investigation of
potential design and performance criteria for booster seats through
volunteer and dynamic testing (Report No. DOT HS 812 919).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119 [last accessed July
26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A booster seat is a platform used to elevate a child in a
vehicle.\184\ A belt-positioning seat (which is considered a booster
seat in FMVSS No. 213) raises the child above the vehicle seat to
better position the seat belts on the child's torso.\185\ In the past,
NHTSA determined that devices that simply reposition vehicle belts for
children, and not reposition the child to fit the belts, are not child
restraint systems. In addition, NHTSA has also determined that a
product that provides a seating surface for a child meets the
definition of a CRS in FMVSS No. 213, but not the definition of a
booster seat if it does not position a child to improve belt fit.\186\
NHTSA considers the ability of a booster seat to elevate or lift the
child to be crucial to occupant protection in side as well as frontal
crashes. Lifting the child enables the child to fit the belts and
attain the benefits of the belt, stay in-position in a crash as opposed
to slouched, and positioned to benefit from other safety systems in the
vehicle, such as side curtain air bags installed to meet FMVSS No. 214
(``Side impact protection'') and No. 226, ``Ejection mitigation.''
NHTSA considers the boosting ability of a booster seat key to
protecting children in side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 51 FR 5335, 5337 (February 13, 1986). ``Booster seats are
designed to be used by older children who have outgrown child seats.
By elevating these children, the- booster seat allows the child to
see out of the vehicle and to use the belt system in the vehicle.''
Id.
    \185\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/06-007784as (Hip
Hugger).
    \186\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/14129ar2jan
(Safesit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's research program is therefore also studying the need to
specify a minimum booster seat height so that children are positioned
high enough to benefit from a vehicle's side curtain air bags. In
NHTSA's June 30, 2022, final rule establishing side impact requirements
for child restraint systems,\187\ NHTSA determined that ``When children
outgrow their safety seats, they transition to a booster seat, which on
average raises a seated child by 82 mm (3.22 inches), which would
position the child high enough to benefit from the vehicle's side
curtain air bags installed to meet Standards No. 214 and 226.'' NHTSA
is studying all the above issues in the research program. Among other
issues, the agency is considering the possibility of a rulemaking to
specify a minimum boosting height in FMVSS No. 213 and No. 213b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Footnote omitted. 87 FR at 39237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simulated Front Seat Back Interaction

    A few commenters suggested adding a front seat forward of the
standard seat assembly. Consumer Reports (CR) argues that data indicate
that head contact is a primary source of injury, and therefore NHTSA
should represent a front seat back to represent the rear seat
environment more accurately. Similarly, SRN and SBS suggest that

NHTSA consider adding a front seat structure in a future rulemaking.

Agency Response

    We appreciate the information provided in the comments but note
that we are not considering rulemaking in this area. Adopting a
simulated front seat back into the FMVSS No. 213 frontal test is out of
scope of this rulemaking.
    We also note that NHTSA is conducting research to address the
characteristics of the seat back, head restraints and B-pillar in
vehicles 188 189 to help reduce head injuries in adults and
children. This research aims to develop a repeatable testing method to
assess the injury potential from head contact on seat backs and lower
B-pillars. Different head forms, locations (seat backs and b-pillar),
test speeds (15 mph and 20 mph) and potential countermeasures are being
explored. This research will provide more insights into the head to
seat back/B-pillar impacts that may help NHTSA isolate the different
injury mechanisms contributing to child head injuries against the seat
backs and B-pillars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Louden, A., Wietholter, K., Duffy, S.J. ``Lower Interior
Impacts to Seat Backs and B-Pillars'' SAE Government Industry
Meeting (2017) Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/sae2017alouden.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \189\ Wietholter, K. (2022, July). Development of test
procedures for lower interior rear seat occupant protection (Report
No. DOT HS 813 319). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/62933 [last accessed May
22, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Include Interpretations in FMVSS No. 213

    JPMA and Evenflo encouraged NHTSA to incorporate past
interpretations into the standard or into TP-213 as appropriate. In
response, NHTSA does not believe it is necessary to incorporate
interpretations as a general matter because the interpretations are
available on the agency's website and are searchable. Moreover, NHTSA
declines to incorporate the interpretations in this final rule because
extending the rulemaking to incorporate them would lengthen the time to
draft this final rule and increase the volume of the rule's subject
matter. Nonetheless, NHTSA appreciates the suggestion and will consider
the matter for a possible future action.

Adopting Side Impact Protection

    A number of entities (SBS, AAP, CR, the People's Republic of China,
Dorel, and CHOP) commented on NHTSA's development of an FMVSS for side
impact protection requirements for child restraint systems. The side
impact final rule, published on June 30, 2022 (87 FR 39234), adopted a
side impact standard seat assembly that is harmonized with the frontal
updated standard seat assembly adopted by this final rule.\190\ NHTSA
finalized the side impact standard seat assembly after considering the
comments it received on the 2020 NPRM proposing this frontal updated
standard seat assembly. Other side impact issues brought up by the
commenters have been addressed in the side impact rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Some differences exist between the standard seat
assemblies due to the nature of the test. For example, the seat belt
and the child restraint anchorage system anchorages are centered in
the frontal seat assembly, and aligned 300 mm from the edge of the
seat in the side impact seat assembly. The design of the lower
anchorages are different but their locations are the same, and some
structural reinforcements are different between the standard seat
assemblies due to the different loading conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Misuse Testing

    Mr. Jankowiak commented that if ``real world'' use includes the
unintentional misuse of CRSs, FMVSS No. 213 should then encompass this
in the compliance testing, if feasible. Mr. Jankowiak explained that
because a not insignificant number of CRSs are unintentionally misused
or improperly installed, to reflect ``real-world use'' the tests should
include misuse and/or improperly installed CRSs, if feasible.
    In response, NHTSA agrees, and FMVSS No. 213 currently includes
misuse tests given the degree of misuse in the field. An example is the
32-inch head excursion requirement that CRSs must meet without use of a
tether. NHTSA adopted the test based on data showing that most
caregivers were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints.
Later, NHTSA adopted another head excursion test, to supplement the 32-
inch test requirement. The supplemental test is a correct use test. It
requires child restraints to meet a 28-inch head excursion requirement
and in that test, NHTSA will attach a top tether if the child restraint
includes one and its written instructions direct consumers to use it.
    In addition, FMVSS No. 213 includes a number of requirements to
reduce the likelihood of misuse during real-world use. For example,
NHTSA has standardized the means of anchoring a child restraint to a
vehicle, stating that ``standardization of the means of anchoring a
child restraint to a vehicle is vital to prevent misuse. By requiring
all restraints to be attachable to vehicle seats by the vehicle seat
belt, consumers will be assured of a uniform method of attaching the
restraint and there will be less confusion regarding that aspect of
use.'' \191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ NPRM, 43 FR 21470, 21472; May 18, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Miscellaneous Issues

    NHTSA also received comments asking that the agency: take action on
fake and counterfeit products in the U.S. market; conduct research to
gather more current feedback from parents and child passenger safety
technicians on trends and patterns regarding common CRS misuse; ensure
that mass media images are screened for technical accuracy; support
increased education, public communications, and enforcement efforts
regarding the importance of belt-positioning seat use for children
through age 12. While such comments are out of scope of the rulemaking,
NHTSA appreciates the information provided.

XIII. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising From Research Findings

    In the NPRM, NHTSA requested comment on several developments in
child passenger safety observed in the research context that have
raised the agency's concerns. NHTSA requested comments on how best to
approach those developments.\192\ In this section, we discuss the
comments we received and offer some of our current thinking on the
topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ When NHTSA published the NPRM, the agency docketed a paper
in the NPRM docket (Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093) that discussed the
issues in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. CRSs Associated With Submarining or Ejection

    NHTSA states in the NPRM that the agency has reviewed research
reports on testing done on certain kinds of child restraints that raise
concerns about a potential unreasonable risk of submarining \193\ or
ejection from the devices in crash scenarios. The CRSs in question are
(a) inflatable booster seats, and (b) ``shield-type'' child restraints
(shield-only-CRSs) available in markets overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ ``Submarining'' refers to the tendency for a restrained
occupant to slide forward feet first under the lap belt during a
vehicle crash, which could result in serious abdominal, pelvic, and
spinal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inflatable Booster Seats
    The NPRM explains that Transport Canada conducted 25-30 mph frontal
impact crash tests of different vehicle models, with the HIII-6YO and
HIII-10YO dummies restrained using inflatable boosters in rear seats.
In the tests, the dummies experienced significant submarining due to
excessive compression of the inflatable booster

during the crash event. Submarining refers to when the dummy's pelvis
slides under the lap belt and the lap belt directly loads the abdomen.
Submarining is a serious safety risk because the lap belt will directly
load the occupant's vulnerable soft organs in the abdomen rather than
stay on the strong bones of the pelvis where crash forces can be
tolerated better. Booster seats sold in Canada are required to compress
by not more than 25 mm (1 inch) when subjected to a 2,250 N quasi-
static compression force. Inflatable booster seats cannot currently
meet and are unlikely to meet the requirements of this quasi-static
compression test and so inflatable booster seats are not sold in
Canada. The NPRM requested comment on the findings of the research
crash tests conducted in Canada, the booster seat compression test
requirements in Canada, and the safety need to have a compression test
in FMVSS No. 213.
Comments Received
    Various commenters responded to this issue of a compression test
for belt-positioning seats. (A belt-positioning seat is a type of
booster seat.) The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) commended NHTSA for
taking a proactive approach for these CRSs. SBS commented that it has
limited experience with inflatable boosters ``and it was not very
positive.'' SBS states that it found that inflatable belt-positioning
seats led to poor belt fit and poor positioning of the child,
``including children slipping off the seat in normal driving.'' CR
states it has not seen submarining with inflatable belt-positioning
seats in its 35 g/35 mph testing.
    Volvo commented in support of a compression test. It states that
the dynamic stability of a booster seat is essential as this will
influence its performance in a real-world crash. The commenter explains
that it compared three different types of backless booster seats having
varied degrees of stiffness and design using a human body model \194\
and a dummy \195\ in a vehicle environment.\196\ It states that,
although there were similarities in initial belt fit, there were
alarming differences in dynamic performance. Specifically, Volvo states
that one of the booster seats deformed substantially and this in turn
caused unfavorable kinematics and seat belt interaction. Volvo believes
that the Transport Canada tests on inflatable boosters referenced in
the NPRM \197\ that found submarining ``highlights the importance of a
stable dynamic booster seat design.'' Volvo emphasizes that the
Transport Canada tests were performed in vehicles ``which indicates
that the consequences of excessive deformation of the booster is not
recognized in the standard seat assembly to the same extent.'' It
states that, given the differences in the standard seat assembly and
vehicle environment and the limitations of the current test dummies and
performance criteria to detect submarining and the risk of abdominal
injury, Volvo supports the introduction of a quasi-static compression
test requirement. The commenter cautioned though, that the test should
be written so that the belt-positioning seat would not be sub-optimized
for one specific position of the pressure plate. Volvo states it is
especially important that ``the booster seat does not deform
excessively on the front edge of the booster as this is the most
critical area'' to prevent submarining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Modeling efforts included 18 frontal impact simulations
with the finite element PIPER 6-year-old human body model (HBM)
investigating different combinations of parameters (booster shape,
stiffness, and guiding loop design).
    \195\ Testing efforts include 3 frontal impact sled tests with a
Q10 dummy using vehicle rear seat interiors.
    \196\ Bohman K, [Ouml]sth J, Jakobsson L, Stockman I,
Wimmerstedt M, Wallin H. Booster cushion design effects on child
occupant kinematics and loading assessed using the PIPER 6-year-old
HBM and the Q10 ATD in frontal impacts, Traffic Inj Prev 20, Aug
2020;1-6 Link for paid access: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389588.2020.1795148 [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \197\ Tylko et al., 2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BubbleBum, a manufacturer of inflatable belt-positioning seats sold
in the U.S., commented against having a compression test in FMVSS No.
213. The manufacturer states that the experimental data from Transport
Canada \198\ shows that submarining occurs in some but not all tests
with inflatable belt-positioning seats. BubbleBum states that Transport
Canada 2012 \199\ test data of 42 full scale rigid barrier frontal
vehicle crash tests shows that submarining also occurs in 31 percent of
conventional,\200\ non-inflatable, belt-positioning seats. BubbleBum
states that Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) 201 202
found that the vast majority of conventional and rigid belt-positioning
seats TRL tested exhibited unfavorable kinematics, indicating
submarining, in a series of 12 sled tests with 6- and 10-year-old
dummies on the seats over a range of different lap belt paths.
BubbleBum argues that field observations of conventional belt-
positioning seats show that they are extremely effective in mitigating
injury as shown in a 2009 Children's Hospital of Philadelphia study
\203\ that found children aged 4 to 8 years restrained in belt-
positioning seats were 45 percent less likely to sustain injuries than
similarly aged children who were using the vehicle seat belt alone. The
commenter states that the study also shows that, for backless belt-
positioning seats, there was a complete absence of abdominal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Referenced in the NPRM and docketed NHTSA-2020-0093-0013
at www.regulations.gov.
    \199\ Tylko, S. and Bussieres, A. ``Responses of the Hybrid III
5th Female and 10-year-old ATD Seated in the Rear Seats of Passenger
Vehicles in Frontal Crash Tests'' IRCOBI Conference 2012 http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc12/pdf_files/65.pdf [last
accessed July 26, 2023].
    \200\ By conventional belt-positioning seats, NHTSA means belt-
positioning seats that have a more rigid seating platform and that
are non-inflatable.
    \201\ TRL is an accredited Technical Service in the United
Kingdom for the type[hyphen]approval of child restraint systems to
UN Regulation No. 129.
    \202\ Visvikis, C. Carrol, J. Pitcher, M. and Waagmeester, K.
``Assessing Lap Belt Path and Submarining Risk in Booster Seats:
Abdominal Pressure Twin Sensors vs. Anterior-superior Iliac Spine
Load Cells.'' IRCOBI Conference 2018. http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc18/pdf-files/92.pdf [last accessed July 26,
2023].
    \203\ Arbogast KB, Jermakian JS, Kallan MJ, Durbin DR.
Effectiveness of belt-positioning booster seats: an updated
assessment. Pediatrics. 2009 Nov;124(5):1281-6. doi: 10.1542/
peds.2009-0908. Epub 2009 Oct 19. PMID: 19841126. Link for access:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/124/5/1281/72162/Effectiveness-of-Belt-Positioning-Booster-Seats-An?redirectedFrom= fulltext [last accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BubbleBum argues that all the findings presented indicate that the
experimental observations of belt-positioning seat performance predict
there should be substantial abdominal injury in the field, yet such
injuries are not observed in the field. The commenter further states
that it has conducted extensive crash testing on regulatory standard
seat assemblies and real vehicle seats and used conventional belt-
positioning seats as controls and found that the 6-year-old dummy did
not submarine on the BubbleBum or on the conventional belt-positioning
seats. The commenter states that it has 11 years of field experience,
with over a million units in the field around the world and 70 percent
of these seats in the U.S. and that there are no reported injuries,
including submarining injuries, in crashes involving its product.
BubbleBum states that its product has been crash tested, approved to
the ECE requirements in Europe in the deflated state and tested in the
U.S. in a deflated state. It states that its product performs well in
the deflated test because it can maintain its structural integrity due
to

the High-Density Cellular Structure and webbing harness which, the
manufacturer states, are integral to the functionality and performance
of the seat. The commenter argues that adding compression deflection
testing to the regulation would not result in a ``measurable benefit''
to the health and safety of children.
    JPMA commented with its view that research, testing and field
performance assessment must clearly demonstrate that addition of a
compression test offers real-world injury-reduction benefit given that
a compression test would be applied to all belt-positioning seats if
incorporated. JPMA said it would similarly like to see clear injury-
reduction benefit of rebound control metrics before such an addition is
considered, because the depth of the proposed standard seat assembly is
45 mm (1.77 inches) less than the current standard seat assembly and
developing and testing rebound control features would be further
complicated as a result.
NHTSA's Views
    The agency thanks the commenters for their views on this matter.
While NHTSA agrees with BubbleBum that some non-inflatable belt-
positioning seats showed submarining during testing and that the
BubbleBum did not always submarine in these tests, NHTSA does not agree
that this information is a satisfactory answer to the increased risk of
submarining that test data are associating with inflatable belt-
positioning seats. Some non-inflatable belt-positioning seats may be
prone to submarining for features other than seat stiffness, but
several additional studies to the ones noted in the NPRM have also
identified a greater risk of submarining associated with inflatable
belt-positioning seats.
    IIHS and UVA recently conducted a large-scale, parametric study
\204\ of 714 individual belt-positioning seats to examine the link
between booster seat designs and child occupant response during
simulated collisions. The study used the PIPER human body model, a
finite element (FE) model of the FMVSS No. 213 proposed standard seat
assembly and characterized key parameters in the belt-positioning seat
design space from a sample of 44 physical belt-positioning seats. The
findings of the study found inflatable boosters almost always resulted
in submarining of the dummy. In NHTSA's view, this recent study, the
studies referenced in the NPRM and Volvo's data (see Volvo's comment
above) suggest that inflatable belt-positioning seats are posing a
greater risk of submarining. NHTSA would like to determine whether such
risk is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Parametric study of booster seat design characteristics
Jason Forman, Matthew Miller, Daniel Perez-Rapela, Bronislaw Gepner,
University of Virginia, Center for Applied Biomechanics; Marcy
Edwards, Jessica Jermakian, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(US). Link: https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2245 [last
accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BubbleBum argues that its product is safe because it meets the
performance measures of FMVSS No. 213 while deflated. NHTSA is not
persuaded, as a deflated device is akin to a ``height-less'' device.
The risk of submarining is real with height-less devices, but difficult
to detect because the child dummy pelvis joint does not have the
flexibility of a human child pelvic joint. A human child can bend its
lower back and pelvis into a slouched position allowing the seat belt
to ride up the abdomen of the child (as the child submarines). In
contrast, the dummy's lower back and pelvis cannot bend as much as a
human (i.e., bend into a slouching position), which reduces the chances
of the seat belt moving upwards towards the abdomen when the dummy is
seated. In addition, FMVSS No. 213's test uses a locked (fixed) Type 2
seat belt that does not allow seat belt spool out (contrary to the
retractors in an actual vehicle), which prevents the dummy from having
a more forward movement in the dynamic event. Submarining can occur as
the child pelvis slips under the lap belt, loading the abdomen. This
means that the locked retractor is helping overcome the submarining
that would occur had the event been in a real vehicle with an actual
retractor. The locked retractor leads to unrealistically favorable
results in terms of submarining. Similarly, the locked retractor may
enable a dummy to exhibit head and knee excursions within FMVSS No.
213's limits when sitting on the standard seat assembly without a CRS--
even when the limits may be grossly exceeded in a test of the dummy in
a real vehicle with an actual retractor. This results in an analysis of
a restraint that is more favorable than it would likely be in a real-
world crash. As noted in the section above, NHTSA is working to add a
retractor to FMVSS No. 213 that is not locked.
    JPMA commented that because the depth of the proposed standard seat
assembly is 45 mm (1.77 inches) less than the current standard seat
assembly, developing and testing rebound control features would be
further complicated. NHTSA understands that by ``depth'' JPMA is
referring to the thickness of the seat foam. We disagree that a thinner
seat foam in the updated standard seat assembly would complicate
booster seat rebound control features. Testing with the updated
standard seat assembly showed that current belt-positioning seat
designs already meet the updates to the standard, therefore, there will
be no need to develop new rebound control features. JPMA did not
provide any evidence on how the thinner foam would impact belt-
positioning seat designs.
    NHTSA conducted compression tests \205\ on 14 CRS models \206\
spanning the different materials observed in the market (Table 14).
Test results showed that BubbleBum and Hiccapop (both inflatable belt-
positioning seats) were the only belt-positioning seats that failed the
compression tests with deflections reaching 42.56 and 49.4 mm (1.67 and
1.94 inches) respectively. The Clek Ozzi belt positioning seat made of
EPS foam almost reached the 25 mm (1 inch) deflection limit. The data
indicate that all non-inflatable belt-positioning seats would meet the
compression test, and test results with the updated standard seat
assembly show that belt-positioning seats also meet the performance
requirements. Therefore, most non-inflatable belt-positioning seats
would not need redesigning if a compression test were adopted into
FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Following CMVSS Test Method 213.2 Section 4 which
specifies using a 203 mm diameter flat plate to apply a vertical
force at a rate between 50 to 500 mm/min. An initial preload of 175N
(~40 lbs) is applied followed by a 2250N (~500 lbs.) load while
measuring the deflection when fully loaded. Booster seat must
deflect less than 25 mm.
    \206\ The Mifold was also tested but was excluded from this data
as it was not determined whether the Mifold was a belt-positioning
seat.

           Table 14--Belt-Positioning Seat Tested for Compression With Manufacturing/Material Details
                                              [NHTSA test results]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Deflection
             Manufacturer                            Model                   Seat categories           (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo...............................  AMP Backless Booster..........  Injection molded........            8.39
KidsEmbrace...........................  Batman Backless Booster.......  Blow molded.............          10.351
Graco.................................  Turbo GO Folding Backless       Injection molded........          10.691
                                         Booster.
Graco.................................  Backless TurboBooster.........  Injection molded........          11.685
Lil Fan...............................  Slimline No Back Seat Booster.  Blow molded.............          12.654
Cosco.................................  Topside Backless Booster......  Blow molded.............          12.809
Safety 1st............................  Incognito.....................  EPP Foam................          13.717
Graco.................................  TurboBooster TakeAlong          Injection molded........          14.347
                                         Backless Booster.
Safe Traffic System...................  JD16100BKR-1 Delighter Booster  EPP Foam................           17.53
Chicco................................  Booster.......................  Injection molded........          17.968
Harmony...............................  Juvenile Youth Backless         Blow molded.............          19.054
                                         Booster.
Clek..................................  Ozzi Booster..................  EPP Foam................          24.234
Bubble Bum............................  Backless Booster..............  Inflatable..............          42.496
Hiccapop..............................  Uberboost Inflatable Booster..  Inflatable..............          49.427
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JPMA believes that a compression limit should only be implemented
if a measurable benefit can be determined. In response, the Safety Act
authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards to protect the public
against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident. If the commenter
is saying that NHTSA must identify injuries found in the field, that is
an incorrect understanding of the Safety Act. NHTSA can move to issue
FMVSS requirements based on research data alone, without waiting for an
associated injury to be found in the field. BubbleBum argues that the
absence of reported injuries in the field is evidence of the safety of
their product. In response, reported injuries in the field may not
reflect the extent of injuries in the field or the likelihood that such
injuries may occur. Data are also sparse overall on injuries that may
affect only two products in the market, so if injuries were occurring
or being made more severe in the field due to an inflatable booster
compressing in a crash, it is unlikely information about such injuries
could be easily found. NHTSA believes the research data showing an
increased risk of injury due to the product compressing in a crash is
sufficiently concerning to warrant further exploration.
    In response to BubbleBum's argument that a study showed that belt-
positioning seats have proven to be highly effective in preventing
injuries in the field, these data relate to conventional booster seats
that do not compress in a crash. The booster seats in the study have a
similar construction amongst them and are different from inflatable
devices. The effectiveness findings for these boosters cannot be
applied to a product that does not keep the child boosted (and
protected against submarining) throughout the crash event.
    NHTSA plans to continue to look at inflatable belt-positioning
seats. The Automotive Safety Council, SBS and Volvo supported actions
to address the potential increased risk to safety of inflatable
designs. NHTSA is working to develop a surrogate retractor, and
additional belt-positioning seat performance measures,\207\ that may
help detect submarining in belt-positioning seats by allowing some
spool out of the seat belt webbing before locking, thus replicating the
retractors in actual vehicles. When the work is complete, NHTSA will
consider the merits of rulemaking to incorporate the surrogate
retractor and additional belt-positioning seat performance requirements
into FMVSS No. 213. The agency envisions that the future rulemaking
could include other approaches that address height-less devices as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Klinich, K.D., Jones, M.H., Manary, M.A., Ebert, S.H.,
Boyle, K.J., Malik, L., . . . Reed, M.P. (2020, April).
Investigation of potential design and performance criteria for
booster seats through volunteer and dynamic testing (Report No. DOT
HS 812 919). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Link: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119/dot_49119_DS1.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shield-Only-CRSs
    Shield-only-CRSs only have a shield to restrain a young child's
upper torso, lower torso, and crotch. While such CRSs are currently not
available in the U.S., there are a wide variety of shield-only-CRSs in
Europe intended for children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Child
dummies (representing children aged 18-months old and 3-years-old)
restrained in shield-only-CRSs in simulated vehicle rollover tests, 64
km/h (40 mph) offset frontal impact vehicle crash tests, and in 64 km/h
(40 mph) Allgemeiner Deutsher Automobil-Club (ADAC) type frontal impact
sled tests were completely or partially ejected from the child
restraints. The test results raise concern about the ability of a
shield-only-CRS to retain small children in the CRS in certain crashes
or in a rollover. The NPRM sought comment on the findings of these
research tests. The agency asked if FMVSS No. 213 should require
shield-only-CRSs to have additional shoulder belts and a crotch strap,
similar to the requirements for child restraints that have belts
designed to restrain the child (S<IP_ADDRESS>).
Comments Received
    NHTSA received comments providing perspectives from very different
points of view. Cybex provided historical information relating to the
research studies discussed in the NPRM to imply that current shield
child restraint systems would not exhibit the performance found in the
above tests. Cybex states that the European child restraint system
overturning test was amended in UN Regulation No. 44 in February 2014
to be more stringent, in part to address the performance of shield
systems in vehicle rollover tests. The improved overturning test
procedure was also introduced in the new UN Regulation No. 129 for
child restraints that entered into force on June 10, 2014. Cybex states
that all shield systems type-approved after the aforementioned dates
meet the improved overturning requirements, while ``the shield systems
that were used by Tylko would not have been subject to these more
stringent overturning requirements.'' Cybex also believes that shield
systems used in a study by TRL \208\ under contract to

Britax were likely approved prior to the amendment made to the
overturning test. Cybex states that UN R.129 is now the primary child
restraint system regulation in those parts of the world that follow UN
Regulations. The commenter believes that requirements in R.129 would
prevent a shield system that allows the partial ejection described in
the TRL study from gaining type-approval. The commenter suggests that
NHTSA ``consider adopting performance-based requirements instead of
specifying design constraints (e.g., minimum radius, curvature of
contactable surface, shoulder straps).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Visvikis, C., et al., ``Evaluation of shield and harness
systems in frontal impact sled experiments,'' TRL, UK. Johannsen,
H., Beillas, P., Lesire, P. ``Analysis of the performance of
different architectures of forward-facing CRSs with integral
restraint system,'' International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Seoul, Republic of Korea,
2013, Paper 13-0226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volvo commented that shield-only CRSs should not be used as they do
not restrain a child according to fundamental principles of protection.
The commenter explains that the fundamental principles include an early
coupling between the occupant and the restraint, which leads to reduced
loading on the child. Volvo states that a misuse study shows that
shields are not fastened tight enough to the child's body, likely for
the child's comfort. Volvo believes a shield-only child restraint
inherently is likely to have a higher risk of slack as compared to a
child restraint with a harness. ``A harness is needed to restrain the
child over the strong parts of the body and to ensure that the child
will not be ejected from the restraint.\209\ Volvo states that crash
testing,210 211 field studies,\212\ and misuse observation
\213\ studies all provide evidence that shield-only CRS do not address
the fundamental principles of protection and result in reduced occupant
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ Kent R, Forman J. Restraint biomechanics, In: Yoganandan
N. Accidental Injury, Springer, 2015:116-8.
    \210\ Johanssen H, Beillas P, Lesire P. Analysis of the
performance of different architectures of forward-facing CRS with
integral restraint systems, 23rd Int. ESV Conf., Paper No. 13-0226,
Seoul, Korea, 2013 Link: https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/23/files/Session%205%20Oral.pdf [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \211\ Tylko S, Bussiere A, Lepretre JP. Comparison of HIII and Q
series child ATDs for the evaluation of child restraint performance
during dynamic rollover, 12th Int. Conf. Protection of Children in
Cars, Munich, Germany, 2013.
    \212\ Edgerton, Orzechowski KM, Eichelberger MR. Not all child
safety seats are created equal: the potential dangers of shield
booster seats, Pediatrics 113(3), 2004:153-158 Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5855078_Not_All_Child_Safety_Seats_Are_Created_Equal_The_Potential_Dangers_of_Shield_Booster_Seats [last accessed July 26, 2023].
    \213\ Morris SD, Arbogast KB, Durbin DR, Winston FK, Misuse of
booster seats, Inj Prevention 6(4), 2000:281-4 Link: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/6/4/281.full.pdf [last
accessed: July 26, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volvo did not support the idea of requiring the shield-only CRSs to
have shoulder belts and a crotch strap. The commenter states that an
internal harness is needed to ensure that the strong body parts are
engaged and to ensure early coupling with the child occupant, thus
reducing the risk of ejection. Volvo believes that once the harness has
been added to the child seat, the shield can be completely removed.
Volvo states that adding the belts and strap may increase the risk of
misuse as well as have a negative impact on ease-of-use.
    Consumer Reports states that as there are not currently any shield-
only child restraints in the U.S., preventing their use would
presumably be more cost effective than the research and development
needed to determine how to regulate them best.
NHTSA's Views
    The agency appreciates the information from these commenters. NHTSA
will consider them as it contemplates possible future actions the
agency should take to address shield-only child restraints.

b. Should infant carriers' height limits better align with their weight
limits?

    NHTSA requested information on a matter showing up in the field
concerning children under 1YO outgrowing infant carriers by height much
earlier than by weight. Research studies conducted at UMTRI \214\ show
that some infant carriers marketed as suitable for children up to 13.6
kg (30 lb) cannot ``fit'' the height of a 95th percentile 1 YO or an
average 1.5 YO.\215\ NHTSA stated that the agency believes that infant
carriers' height and weight recommendations should better match the
children for whom the CRS is recommended. NHTSA requested comment on
UMTRI's research findings. The NPRM asked: Should infant carriers'
height and weight recommendations better match up to better accommodate
the children for whom the CRS is recommended?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ Manary. M., et al., ``Comparing the CRABI-12 and CRABI-18
for Infant Child Restraint System Evaluation.'' June 2015. DOT HS
812 156. The report is available in the docket for this NPRM.
    \215\ Field experience indicates that children at the higher end
of growth charts typically outgrow the carriers by height at around
9-10 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    NHTSA received a number of views on this issue.
    Evenflo states that individual manufacturers have historically
determined whether their products can accommodate children recommended
for their seats who fall within the height and weight limits and that
research referenced in the NPRM confirms there are no uniform practices
for child sizes that are being used by manufacturers for determining
proper heights and weights for infant CRSs. Evenflo and Cybex refer to
the UN child restraint regulation (UN R.129). Evenflo states that R.129
``deals with this issue directly by specifying the child size data
which must be used to classify child restraints.'' Cybex also
references the Australia and New Zealand child restraint standard (AS/
NZ 1754) which establishes critical dimensions for all manufacturers to
use in the design and development of CRSs and belt-positioning seats.
Evenflo and Cybex note that adopting the approach of these regulations
would be a way to establish height and weight ranges for CRSs that can
be applied consistently from manufacturer to manufacturer.
    JPMA states it is open to the concept of aligning interior child
restraint dimensions with child stature, and that it has seen similar
concepts reflected in other regulations. While the commenter did not
name the regulations, NHTSA assumes JPMA is referring to the UN and AS/
NZ standards.
    Consumer Reports (CR) supports that height limits should more
accurately match rear-facing-only infant seat weight limits to reflect
real children. CR explained that higher weight limits should not be
used as a marketing tool without an appropriate accompanying height
limit (e.g., a 13.6 kg (30-pound) CRS should not have a 29-inch height
limit).
    CR believes that NHTSA is missing an opportunity to address the
current disconnect in the weight and height limits of rear-facing-only
infant seats. CR explains that current rear-facing-only infant seats
have weight maximums that are not commensurate with the seat's shell
height or height limitations. CR states that of the 36 infant seats
currently in CR's ratings, 33 have maximum weight limits of between
13.6 kg (30 lb) and 15.8 kg (35 lb) but have height limits between 762
to 812 mm (30 and 32 inches). CR comments that, based on CDC growth
charts, the combination of the lowest weight limit for that group (13.6
kg (30-pound)) with the highest height limit (812 mm (32 inches)): a
15.8-kg (35-pound) child is approximately a 95th percentile 28-month-
old, whose height would be between 889 to 1016 mm (35 to 40 inches). CR
adds that of the 66 infant seats in the market, only three

have a 889-mm (35-inch) height limit and 46 out of 66 infant seats
listed there have a 15.8-kg (35-pound) limit. CR opined that this
practice potentially results in misuse for kids remaining in their
rear-facing infant carrier after they have exceeded the height
limitations. CR recommends that NHTSA should set standards prohibiting
manufacturers from having weight and height allowances that are so
disparate.
    Volvo states that it is essential to ensure that the optimal CRS is
used for the child (age and size) and that the child must fit in the
infant CRS, for it to provide good protection. Volvo supports NHTSA's
view that infant CRS height and weight recommendations should better
align with the children for whom the CRS is recommended. Volvo states
that the UMTRI study shows that infant CRSs vary in size, so it is
essential that customers are provided clear and relevant information on
what size child the CRS is designed for. Volvo believes that an
appropriate clearance between the top of the head and the top of the
CRS shell is essential because in the real-world environment, there is
likely a vehicle seat in front posing a risk of head impacts if the
head is positioned too close. Volvo notes that it encourages transfer
to a larger CRS that can be used rearward-facing as soon as the infant
is not carried easily in the infant CRS.
    SRN disagrees that weight limits of CRSs should better match the
height limits. SRN states that, having experienced when rear-facing
weight limits were inadequate to keep even many 1-year-old rear-facing,
``we appreciate the buffer that today's models provide.'' (NHTSA
understands this to mean SRN appreciates the higher weight limits of
the infant carriers sold today even if a child may outgrow an infant
seat by height before reaching the weight limit of the CRS, because the
higher limits result in more children riding rear facing.) SRN states
that since the height limit is constrained by the fore-aft space in
vehicles, any alignment in height and weight limits would involve
lowering the rear-facing weight limits. SRN states, ``This is not a
direction we want to go, especially given that many state laws now
specify a child age limit for RF assuming the ample weight limits
provided by today's CRSs, even for the heaviest children.'' SRN states
it would be better to see a greater emphasis on the instructions for
height limits, especially the application of a required rear-facing
height maximum indicator directly on the front of the CRS.
    Graco does not address the specific question NHTSA posed about
infant seats. Instead, the commenter discusses FMVSS No. 213's seat
back height requirements generally and Graco's ideas for amending the
standard relating to child restraints that have adjustable-height seat
backs that ``grow with the child.''
NHTSA's Views
    NHTSA is aware of the approach of UN R.129 and AS/NZ 1754 and is
considering the benefits and challenges of such an approach. We believe
that some of the changes in this final rule will address this issue to
an extent. For example, infant carriers will most likely be marketed
for children up to 13.6 kg (30 lb) and not heavier children. As a
result, there will be many fewer infant carriers (if at all) in the
future where children will outgrow them by height before reaching the
weight threshold. If a manufacturer decides to recommend an infant
carrier for children over 13.6 kg (30 lb), then that CRS will be
subject to testing using the 3-year-old dummy as well and will need to
be large enough to accommodate the dummy. All matters raised by the
commenters will be considered by NHTSA as the agency decides whether
and how to address this matter in the future.

c. Virtual Models for CRS Fit

    NHTSA has supported the development of computer models of children
of different weights and heights to assist CRS manufacturers in
designing child restraints that better fit the children for whom the
CRS is recommended.\216\ These virtual models are available to the
public to improve the fit of CRSs to children.\217\ NHTSA requested
comments from manufacturers and other parties on whether they use the
models and whether the models are helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ NHTSA has sponsored an UMTRI project developing toddler
virtual dummies for use in improving of the fit of CRSs to child
passengers. Information on a 2015 UMTRI workshop describing
development of the toddler virtual fit dummies can be found at:
http://umtri.umich.edu/our-results/projects/umtri-workshop-new-tools-child-occupant-protection.
    \217\ Toddler virtual models available for download at: http://childshape.org/toddler/manikins/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received several comments providing feedback on the models.
Britax identified what it called a few key areas for future development
that the commenter believes would further increase the utility of the
virtual models for CRS fit. Britax suggests the following additions to
the model: (i) the expansion of the covered age range through infancy,
and (ii) the ability to articulate the toddler model, especially
flexion angle at the hip and flexion/extension of the torso and neck.
Similarly, Cybex, Evenflo, and Volvo state that the models would be
more useful if they could be manipulated into more natural positions or
adjusted at major points. Volvo encourages further developments,
including features making it possible to change the posture of the
models to fit the specific CRS or vehicle seats. Evenflo states that
virtual fit checks of the mannequins in car seats would be possible.
    Graco states that it has not used NHTSA's virtual child models and
is unlikely to do so in the future as they are provided in STL format
and are not particularly suitable for manipulation (such as changing
the seating posture or reorienting the arms relative to the torso) in
the computer aided design software used by Graco. Graco suggests that
NHTSA might consider making the models available in a data format that
can be more readily integrated into users' computer aided modeling
tools, such as Parasolid or STEP.
NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA appreciates the suggestions for improving the models. The
agency will consider improving the virtual models so that they provide
more functionality, such as with moving joints to better position the
virtual models, and so they can be used in a more accessible data
format.

XIV. Lead Time and Compliance Dates

    The NPRM proposed that the compliance date for most of the
amendments in the rulemaking action would be three years following the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, with
optional early compliance permitted, except as follows:
     A 180-day compliance date was proposed for the changes to
registration card requirements and the proposed changes to permit more
add-on school bus child restraint systems (early optional compliance
would be permitted for both); and,
     A 1-year compliance date was proposed for labeling and
printed instructions requirement changes (early optional compliance
would be permitted).
Comments Received
    All comments on this issue supported the proposed lead times and
compliance dates. JPMA supported the proposed option for early
compliance ``so CRS model designs can be optimized to comply with one
set of test configurations, rather than two.'' The commenter also added
that the lead time for labeling and printed instructions changes should
provide

time to allow manufacturers to use current labels for a period so
``existing supplies can be exhausted and production processes are
minimally interrupted by the changes.''
    Dorel, Evenflo, and, IMMI also supported the proposed option for
early compliance. Dorel stated that labeling, registration and dummy
compliance testing in the NPRM could be brought to a final rule quickly
as these were ``not controversial.'' Evenflo asked whether the labeling
changes that must be implemented by the end of the one-year lead time
and the testing changes that must be implemented by the end of 3 years
will require two labeling updates, which, Evenflo stated, seems
inefficient and potentially confusing to the consumer. Graco
recommended that the effective dates of both the revised frontal and
the new side impact coincide. Graco suggested that all proposed changes
affecting labels become mandatory concurrently, except for S5.5.2(f)
where Graco suggested that manufacturers should have the option of
adopting this section upon issuance of the final rule or a short time
thereafter.
Agency Response
    This final rule adopts the compliance dates proposed in the NPRM
except to provide 1 year for the changes to school bus CRS, labeling,
and registration card changes. The change is made to align with the
requirements for the labeling and printed instructions changes, to
reduce the need for manufacturers having to deal with multiple
compliance dates within the standard. We note that there is minimal or
no practical consequence to providing a year for the changes rather
than 180 days. The amendments pertaining to the school bus CRS and
registration program are permissive and do not require manufacturers to
change any of their current practices. Further, voluntary early
compliance is permitted, so manufacturers can implement the changes as
soon as they want. NHTSA does not believe having the labeling changes
with an earlier compliance date than the new testing requirements would
be inefficient as early compliance is an option and manufacturers could
accommodate early compliance if they so choose. NHTSA's data show that
current CRS models, for the most part, already would comply with the
new FMVSS No. 213b test requirements. NHTSA also does not believe that
making labeling changes and testing requirements effective on two
different dates would be confusing to the consumer. The labeling
changes and testing are transparent to the consumer; they usually do
not know how CRSs are tested and the labeling changes with different
weight and height recommendations will simply guide whether to buy and/
or how to use a CRS.
    If early compliance is chosen by a manufacturer for a CRS model,
the CRS model must meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213,
including the amendments to FMVSS No. 213 made by this final rule, or
all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213b. Manufacturers will not
be allowed to pick and choose among the requirements within a standard
or comply early with some in a standard and not in others. In part,
this provision is to support the efficiency of NHTSA's compliance
program.\218\ If manufacturers were permitted to pick and choose which
requirements they would like to meet early, NHTSA would have to keep
track of the standard's individual requirement according to
manufacturer's input on hundreds of CRS models. NHTSA seeks to limit
such burdens on the compliance program. In addition, the requirement
reduces potential consumer confusion about which standards a purchased
CRS meets. If manufacturers were permitted to meet some requirements
early but not others, consumers may believe they purchased a CRS
meeting, for example, the upgraded standard FMVSS No. 213b when the CRS
did not meet all the requirements in FMVSS No. 213b. NHTSA would like
to avoid this possible source of consumer misunderstanding. This would
also allow for a more equitable enforcement across manufacturers with
the two distinct updates to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ This provision is regularly used by NHTSA when the agency
permits optional early compliance with a standard. The agency
restricts manufacturers from selectively meeting some but not all of
the amended requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Sec.  30111(d) of the Safety Act, a standard may not become
effective before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or
later than one year after it is prescribed, unless NHTSA finds, for
good cause shown, that a different effective date is in the public
interest and publishes the reasons for the finding. A 3-year compliance
period is in the public interest because CRS manufacturers need to gain
familiarity with the updated standard seat assembly and new test
protocols and will need time to assess their products' conformance to
the new FMVSS No. 213b requirements. They will need time to implement
appropriate design and production changes. A 3-year lead time is also
appropriate because it aligns with the typical design cycle of child
restraints. Aligning with design cycles can help reduce the cost of
compliance and possible price increases on consumers.
    The 3-year compliance date for the final rule, with the early
compliance option, provides the same 3-year lead time as the final rule
establishing FMVSS No. 213a, ``Child restraint systems--Side impact
protection'' (87 FR 39234, June 30, 2022). The compliance date for
FMVSS No. 213a is June 30, 2025, with optional early compliance
permitted. NHTSA does not see a reason to delay the compliance date of
the side impact rule another year, or to shorten the lead time for this
final rule a year. Making the compliance dates of the two rules
coincide has some merit but the consequences of aligning them with
regard to this final rule and the side impact protection standard
(FMVSS No. 213b) outweigh such merit. With the option for early
compliance, manufacturers have sufficient flexibility in deciding how
they will meet these final rules.

XV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094 and DOT Rulemaking
Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14094, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory procedures. This final rule is
nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 14094 and was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget. It is also not considered ``of
special note to the Department'' under DOT Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking
and Guidance Procedures.

Estimated Benefits and Costs

    This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213 by (a) updating the standard
seat assembly to better represent the rear seating environment in the
current vehicle fleet, (b) amending several labeling and owner
information requirements to improve communication with today's CRS
caregivers and to align with current best practices for child passenger
safety, and (c) amending how NHTSA uses dummies to make the agency's
compliance tests more evaluative of CRS performance. The rule will
provide some safety benefits with, at most, minimal incremental costs.
Updated Standard Seat Assembly
    The updates to the standard seat assembly in this final rule will
better align the performance of CRSs in compliance tests to that in
real world crashes.

    Based on NHTSA's tests of CRS models representing the market of
infant carrier, convertible, all-in-one, and booster type CRSs on the
updated standard seat assembly, the agency believes that only a few
CRSs may need to be redesigned to meet the requirements of the standard
on the updated standard seat assembly, and that those redesigns will be
minor.\219\ NHTSA is providing a lead time of three years for the
redesign. The agency has not estimated a cost of this redesign, as we
assume the redesign could be incorporated into a typical business model
involving manufacturers refining child restraint designs to freshen
their product lines. The refinements result in new product offerings
that appeal to consumers and help manufacturers remain competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Preliminary tests with the updated standard seat assembly
using an average 23.3 g peak acceleration pulse and an average 47.5
km/h (29.5 mph) velocity within the FMVSS No. 213 acceleration
corridor showed dummy HIC and chest accelerations in some booster
seats, tested with the HIII-6YO and HIII-10YO dummies, near or
exceeding allowable threshold levels. While NHTSA expects that some
booster seats may need to be redesigned to meet the performance
measures when tested with a higher acceleration pulse, these
redesigns could be accomplished without additional material cost.
For example, different foams could be used in the CRS seating
cushions that work better with the proposed stiffer standard seat
cushion foam to lower the HIC and chest g values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There will be costs involved in changing to the updated standard
seat assembly used by NHTSA to assess CRS compliance. However,
manufacturers are not required to use the updated standard seat
assembly. As a practical matter they usually choose to do so to test
their CRSs as similarly to the way NHTSA will test them, but it is not
a requirement to so test. The one-time cost of the updated standard
seat assembly sled buck is about $9,300. If a manufacturer chooses to
build the assembly itself or uses one at an independent test facility,
either way there would be minimal cost impacts when the cost of the
assembly and testing CRSs is distributed among the hundreds of
thousands of CRSs that would be sold by the manufacturers.
    We are retaining the Type 1 seat belt assembly test for an
additional 3 years (2029) so there will be temporary additional annual
test costs of $5,198,000 \220\ for testing with the Type 1 seat belt
assembly up to the year 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ There are currently 70 infant carrier models, 48
convertible CRS models, 60 all-in-one CRS models and 21 combination
CRS models. Each infant carrier would be tested in 2 configurations
with Type 1 seat belt including with and without base. Each
convertible and all-in-one CRS would be tested using Type 1 seat
belt installation in rear facing, forward facing and forward facing
with tether. Each combination CRS would be tested using Type 1 seat
belt installation in forward facing and forward facing with tether.
Each CRS would be subject to tests on average between 1 to 3
dummies. The cost of a sled test is estimated at $4,600. Therefore,
the temporary additional test cost is estimated to be $5,198,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Labeling and Owner Registration
    The agency believes that the updates to the labeling requirements
will benefit safety by reducing the premature transition of children
from CRSs used rear-facing to forward-facing CRSs, and from forward-
facing CRSs to booster seats. The agency estimates 1.9 to 6.3 lives
will be saved and 2.6 to 8.7 moderate-to-critical severity injuries
will be prevented annually by aligning FMVSS No. 213's CRS user
instructions with current best practices on transporting children.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Details of the benefits analysis are provided in the
Appendix to the November 2, 2020 NPRM. 85 FR at 69455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to the labeling requirements will have minimal or no
cost impacts, as mostly they are voluntary. This final rule provides
manufacturers the flexibility to provide required information in
statements or a combination of statements and pictograms at locations
that they deem most effective. Manufacturers may provide child weight
and height ranges for the use of CRSs in a specific installation mode
on existing labels by simply changing the minimum child weight limit
values. Since no additional information is required on the labels by
this final rule, the size of the label does not need to be increased.
Thus, there will be minimal or no additional cost for the labels. There
will also be no decrease in sales of forward-facing child restraint
systems or of booster seats as a result of the final rule's provisions
to raise the minimum child weight limit values for forward-facing CRSs
and booster seats. Most forward-facing CRSs cover a wide child weight
range, so the labeling changes will only affect how caregivers use the
products and not the quantity sold. For example, caregivers will still
purchase forward-facing CRSs but will use them when the child is at
least 1. They will still purchase convertible CRSs but will not turn
them forward-facing until the child is at least 1. They will still
purchase booster seats but will only move the child into them when the
child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb).
    The changes to the registration program generally lessen
restrictions and are optional for manufacturers to implement. These
changes to the registration card provide flexibility to manufacturers
in how they communicate with consumers and will likely help improve
registration rates and recall completion rates. NHTSA cannot quantify
the benefits at this time. NHTSA estimates there are no costs
associated with the changes. While the changes could affect the
collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(which is discussed later in this section), there are no additional
material costs associated with the changes to the registration card or
to the CRS label or printed instructions pertaining to registration.
Manufacturers could use the same card and labels and just change the
wording on them.
Dummies
    The updates to how dummies are used in the test for assessing CRS
performance better accord with current CRS designs and best practices
for transporting child passengers compared to the current
specifications in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot quantify the possible
safety benefits at this time.
    Some of the changes lessen testing burdens by reducing the extent
of testing with dummies. For example, the final rule specifies that
CRSs for children weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) will no
longer be subject to certification with the HIII-3YO dummy. NHTSA
estimates a reduction in testing cost of $717,600 for the current
number of infant carrier models in the market.\222\ Also, CRSs for
children weighing 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb) will no longer be
certified with the CRABI-12MO. However, the agency does not expect any
reduction in testing costs from this latter modification since all CRSs
with internal harnesses are sold for children weighing less than 13.6
kg (30 lb), and so are still subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO in
that regard. The final rule also provides that the CRABI-12MO dummy
will no longer be used in forward-facing tests. NHTSA estimates a
reduction in testing cost of $2,373,600 \223\ for the forward-

facing CRSs that will no longer be certified with the CRABI-12MO. The
positioning procedure for the legs of the HIII-3YO dummy in CRSs used
rear-facing is unlikely to have cost implications because the procedure
is the same as that currently used by manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ There are currently 52 infant carrier models with
recommended upper weight limit exceeding 10 kg (22 lb). Each CRS
designed for rear-facing use is tested in three different
configurations on the updated standard seat assembly with each dummy
used for testing the CRS: (1) CRS installed using seat belts, (2)
CRS installed using the lower anchors and no tether, and (3) CRS
installed without the base using the lower anchors and no tether.
The cost of a sled test is estimated at $4,600. Therefore, the cost
savings by not testing the 52 infant carrier models using the HIII-
3YO dummy is estimated to be $717,600 (= $4,600 x 3 x 52). Since
manufacturers typically conduct more than one test in each of the
CRS installation configurations, NHTSA expects the actual cost
savings to be greater than the estimated $717,600.
    \223\ There are currently 129 forward facing CRSs (including
convertibles, all-in-one and combination) that would no longer be
tested with the CRABI-12MO. Each forward-facing CRS is tested in the
following different configurations: (1) CRS installed using Type 2
seat belts, (2) CRS installed using Type 2 seat belts and tether,
(3) CRS installed using the lower anchors and no tether, and (4) CRS
installed using the lower anchors and tether. The cost of a sled
test is estimated at $4,600. Therefore, the cost savings by not
testing the 129 forward facing models using the CRABI-12MO dummy is
estimated to be $2,373,600 (= $4,600 x 4 x 129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, NHTSA believes that testing CRSs solely with the HIII-
6YO rather than the H2-6YO dummy will not have significant cost
implications. This is because there would be little or no design
changes needed for the CRSs since nearly all the CRSs tested with the
HIII-6YO on the standard seat assembly complied with all the FMVSS No.
213 requirements.\224\ While some commenters (Graco, JPMA, Dorel and
Evenflo) opposed the proposal as they believe chin-to-chest contacts
have not been resolved, the data presented showed that the CRSs are
still capable of meeting the updated standard with the HIII-6YO.
NHTSA's testing also showed that CRSs that currently comply with FMVSS
No. 213 using the H2-6YO dummy also met all the performance
requirements in the standard when tested using the HIII-6YO dummy on
the new standard seat assembly. Manufacturers are increasingly
certifying at least some of their CRS models for older children using
the HIII-6YO dummy rather than the H2-6YO. This shows that most
manufacturers already have access to the HIII-6YO dummy and use it.
Most CRS manufacturers hire commercial test labs to test their CRSs for
conformance with FMVSS No. 213 requirements. These labs already have
the HIII-6YO dummy since some of their CRS manufacturer clients
currently want to certify their CRSs based on tests with the HIII-6YO
dummy. Thus, NHTSA believes there will not be an additional cost
associated with purchasing and testing with the HIII-6YO dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ Of 21 tests with the HIII-6YO on the updated standard seat
assembly, all passed the performance metrics, except for one that
failed head excursion limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that a lead time of three years is sufficient for
redesigning CRSs that may need modifications to comply with the
amendment. Most CRSs will need minor or no modifications as a result of
the final rule. Further, a 3-year time frame aligns with the typical
design cycle for CRSs. The agency notes also that the rule is designed
so that manufacturers can simply change the weight of the children for
whom the CRS is recommended to meet some of the requirements. Narrowing
the population of children for whom the CRS is recommended reduces the
certification burden on manufacturers as well as the number of tests
NHTSA may run to assess compliance.
School Bus Child Restraint Systems
    The changes to include in FMVSS No. 213 a new type of add-on CRS
manufactured for exclusive use on school bus seats allow the sale of
these products. The agency estimates there are no cost impacts
associated with the changes because the amendment is permissive in
nature. The changes will benefit school bus transportation by
permitting more devices to be developed and used to transport preschool
children and children with special needs. However, NHTSA cannot
quantify these benefits at this time.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this
certification.
    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there
to be 38 manufacturers of child restraints, none of which are small
businesses. Even if there were a small CRS manufacturer, the impacts of
this rule will not be significant. NHTSA believes that virtually all
CRSs would meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements on the new seat assembly
without modification. Manufacturers may need to change the labels on
their child restraints pursuant to the requirements, but the changes
are minor and can be met by simply switching out values on current
labels.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule will not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the

manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA
standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common
law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on
motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However,
if and when such a conflict does exist--for example, when the standard
at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard--the State common law
tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding
the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this
end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule and
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher
standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by
today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort
law would not conflict with the minimum standard adopted here. Without
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State
common law tort cause of action.

Civil Justice Reform

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

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the SAE International (SAE). The NTTAA
directs the agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. NHTSA searched for but did not find voluntary
consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments in this final
rule, other than ASTM D3574-11 ``Standard Test Methods for Flexible
Cellular Materials--Slab, Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams,'' and the
minor amendment to update the reference to SAE Recommended Practice
J211/1 to the March 1995 version.
    However, consistent with the NTTAA, NHTSA reviewed the procedures
and regulations developed globally to dynamically test child restraints
and found areas of common ground.\225\ While there is no single
procedure or regulation of another country that sufficiently replicates
frontal crashes occurring in the U.S., the agency considered various
aspects of international regulations pertaining to the testing of child
restraint systems. NHTSA analyzed aspects of the seating assemblies
used by NPACS, ECE R.44 and Transport Canada's CMVSS No. 213 and the
frontal test speeds used worldwide in sled tests. NHTSA adopts a
requirement to test CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts, which is
consistent with CMVSS No. 213. NHTSA concludes that the provisions
increase CRS safety and promote harmonization of our countries'
regulatory approaches in testing CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ The NTTAA seeks to support efforts by the Federal
government to ensure that agencies work with their regulatory
counterparts in other countries to address common safety issues.
Circular No. A-119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and
Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities,'' January 27, 2016, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2010
results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 = 1.36). This rule will not
result in a cost of $136 million or more to either State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:
    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues.
In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of
U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be
necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export
and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues,
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the
absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can
also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in
regulatory requirements.
    NHTSA received a comment from the People's Republic of China making
suggestions about flammability and side impact requirements for child
restraints. The comment was out of the scope of this rulemaking.
    In the discussion above on the NTTAA, NHTSA has noted that it has
reviewed the procedures and regulations developed by Transport Canada
regarding testing CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts and agrees with
the merits of the CMVSS No. 213 provision.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Before seeking OMB
approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day public comment period
and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each collection of information requirement. NHTSA believes
the changes to the owner registration program (571.213, S5.8)
constitute changes to a ``collection of information'' requirement for
child restraint system manufacturers. NHTSA is providing a 60-day
comment period on reporting burdens and other matters associated with
the owner registration program new requirements.
    OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in
the request for comment document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
    How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected;
    How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.''
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals and Households.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    Child restraint manufacturers are required to provide an owner
registration card for purchasers of child restraint systems in
accordance with title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part
571, section 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' The registration card is
required to be perforated into two parts. The top part (information
part) contains a message and suitable instructions to be retained by
the purchaser. The size, font, color, and layout of the top part are
currently prescribed in Figures 9a and 9b,\226\ as is the attachment
method (fold/perforation) of the information card to the lower part of
the form (the mail-in card). The top part of the registration card sets
forth: (a) prescribed wording advising the consumer of the importance
of registering; (b) prescribed instructions on how to register; and (c)
prescribed statements that the mail-in card is pre-addressed and that
postage is already paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ Prescribed in FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.''
As discussed in this preamble, this NPRM proposes to relieve some of
those restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bottom part (the mail-in card) is to be returned to the
manufacturer by the purchaser. The bottom part includes prepaid return
postage, the pre-printed name/address of the manufacturer, the pre-
printed model and date of manufacture, and spaces for the purchaser to
fill in his/her name and address. Optionally, child restraint
manufacturers are permitted to add to the registration form: (a)
Specified statements informing CRS owners that they may register
online; (b) the internet address for registering with the company; (c)
revisions to statements reflecting use of the internet to register; and
(d) a space for the consumer's email address.
    Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide printed
instructions with new CRSs, with step-by-step information on how the
restraint is to be used, and a permanently attached label that gives
``quick look'' information on matters such as use instructions and
information on registering the CRS.
    Under this final rule, the agency is amending the requirements that
prescribe wording advising the consumer of the importance of
registering their CRS and instructing how to register. NHTSA is
adopting changes to stop prescribing the wording. Instead, CRS
manufacturers are given leeway to use their own words to convey the
importance of registering the CRS and to instruct how registration is
achieved. NHTSA will allow statements instructing consumers to use
electronic (or any other means) of registering, as long as instructions
are provided on using the paper card for registering (including that
the mail-in card is pre-addressed and that the postage is pre-paid).
NHTSA will allow other means of electronic registration other than a
web address, such as a QR code, tine URL, or similar.
    In this final rule, the agency is also removing restrictions on
manufacturers on their use of size, font, color, layout, and attachment
method of the information card portion. NHTSA is continuing a current
provision that prohibits any other information unrelated to the
registration of the CRS, such as advertising or warranty information.
    With the changes to the information card adopted in this final
rule, NHTSA anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated
with the revised information card, labels and printed instructions.
Child restraint systems manufacturers produce, on average, a total of
approximately 16,000,000 child restraint systems per year. NHTSA
estimates there are 38 CRS manufacturers with 159 distinct CRS models.
    The hour burden associated with the revised label consists of the
child restraint manufacturer: (a) designing the information card with
statements to instruct how to register, encourage registration and
optionally, how to register electronically and how the submitted
information will be used; and (b) updating this information on the
existing information card, label and printed instructions. NHTSA
assumes for purposes of this analysis that each manufacturer would
design the registration information on the information card, label and
printed instructions 5 times per year, whether it is to use different
registration card designs in different CRS models or to adapt the
design to improve registrations. The agency estimates 50 hours of
additional burden per child restraint manufacturer for the designing of
the registration card (information card portion), labels and printed
instructions that no longer have prescribed text (50 hours x 5 designs/
year x 38 CRS manufacturers = 9,599 hours annually).
    Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 9,500 hours.
    The burden of designing labels and printed instruction is minimal.
CRS manufacturers use templates to include in their CRSs. The design of
the basic label design is adjusted with necessary changes based on the
different models. Specific CRS labels can readily be created through
editing of text and insertion of updated diagrams. Therefore, there is
no new annualized burden associated with label and instruction
development.

    Comments are invited on: Whether the described collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of
information technology.
    You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number
above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at (202) 366-
9826. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which
a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comment be
provided.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Incorporation by Reference

    In updating the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213
frontal test, NHTSA incorporates by reference a drawing package titled,
``Parts List and Drawings, NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213,
No. NHTSA-213-2021, Child Frontal Impact Sled'' dated March 2023, into
FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). The drawing package consists of
detailed drawings and other materials related to the standard seat
assembly referenced in this final rule. Interested persons could use
the drawing package to manufacture the standard seat assembly for their
own use if they wished to do so.
    NHTSA has placed a copy of the drawing package in the docket for
this final rule. Interested parties can download a copy of the drawing
package or view the materials on-line by accessing www.Regulations.gov.
    This final rule also removes an incorporation by reference of SAE
Recommended Practice J211, ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,''
revised 1980, and replaces it with the 1995 version of J211 (J211/1) in
FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 213b (49 CFR 571.213b). The SAE J211/1
standard provides guidelines and recommendations for techniques of
measurements used in impact tests to achieve uniformity in
instrumentation practice and in reporting results. Signals from impact
tests have to be filtered following the standard's guidelines to
eliminate noise from sensor signals. Following J211/1 guidelines
provides a basis for meaningful comparisons of test results from
different sources. This final rule amends 49 CFR 571.5 to remove the
reference to Sec.  571.213 from the SAE recommended practice J211,
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,'' revised 1980. Interested parties
can obtain a copy of the SAE Recommended Practice J211/1
``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic
Instrumentation,'' from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, website: www.sae.org.
    This final rule also incorporates by reference the standard ASTM
D3574-11 ``Standard Test Methods for Flexible Cellular Materials--Slab,
Bonded, and Molded Urethane Foams'' in FMVSS No. 213b. ASTM D3574 is a
standard method for testing flexible cellular urethane and polyurethane
foams. ASTM D3574 is used to measure and evaluate flexible foam
properties, including: density and indentation force deflection (IFD).
    This final rule incorporates by reference ASTM D1056-07, Standard
Specification for Flexible Cellular Materials-Sponge or Expanded
Rubber, into FMVSS No. 213b. ASTM D1056-07 is a standard for cellular
materials, both Sponge (Open Cell) and Expanded (Closed Cell). ASTM
D1056 specifies several different procedures for testing flexible
cellular materials. The tests include a compression deflection test,
accelerated aging tests, compression-deflection tests, an oil-immersion
test (open-cell sponge); fluid immersion tests (closed cell); a water
absorption test; density tests; and a low-temperature flex test.
    Interested parties can obtain a copy of the ASTM standards from
ASTM International at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, website: www.astm.org/.
    This final rule incorporates by reference the American Association
of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Gray Scale for Color Change.
AATCC Gray Scale for Color Change is used for assessing color change
during color fastness testing. The scale is used for visual assessment
to enable users to specify a rating from 1 to 5. Interested parties can
obtain the AATCC Gray Scale for Color Change at PO Box 12215 Research
Triangle Park, NC, USA. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, website:
www.aatcc.org/.
    This final rule incorporates by reference Drawing No. 210-5000-
1(L), -2(R), Leg Assembly. The drawing shows the assembly and parts of
the 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart P) dummy's legs. The
drawing can be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2001-11171-0004 in
www.regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2001-11171-0004).
    The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this
document and were previously approved for the locations in which they
appear: Drawing Package, SAS-100-1000, Standard Seat Belt Assembly with
Addendum A, Seat Base Weldment (consisting of drawings and a bill of
materials), October 23, 1998; and Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard
Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2003,'' (consisting of
drawings and a bill of materials), June 3, 2003.

Severability

    The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9.
It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the
application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is
unaffected.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of
each year. You

may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain
language in writing this rule. Please inform the agency if you can
suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under Part 512. If you claim that any of the information or documents
provided in your submission constitutes confidential business
information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or are protected
from disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1905, you may either submit your
request via email or request a secure file transfer link from the
Office of the Chief Counsel contact listed below. You must submit
supporting information together with the materials that are the subject
of the confidentiality request, in accordance with Part 512, to the
Office of the Chief Counsel. Do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters.
    Your request must include a request letter that contains supporting
information, pursuant to Part 512.8. Your request must also include a
certificate, pursuant to Part 512.4(b) and Part 512, Appendix A.
    You are required to submit one unredacted ``confidential version''
of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment.
Pursuant to Part 512.6, the words ``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN
BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page
containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter
situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be
confidential, identify each item of information for which
confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
    You are also required to submit one redacted ``public version'' of
the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment.
Pursuant to Part 512.5(a)(2), the redacted ``public version'' should
include redactions of any information for which you are seeking
confidential treatment (i.e., the only information that should be
unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential
treatment). For questions about a request for confidential treatment,
please contact Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
XVI. Appendices to the Preamble

Appendix A to the Preamble: Reproducibility Test Results

                                   Evenflo Embrace 35--CRABI--Infant--LA Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Sled  velocity         Test                          Chest  clip
           Test No.                 (mph)      acceleration  (g)       HIC36         3ms  (g)        RF  angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR06-19-28...................            30.1               23.6             660            54.8              51
RR06-19-29...................            30.0               23.5             632            54.6              51
RR06-19-30...................            30.0               23.5             637            55.9              52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan......................................            St. Dev            14.9             0.7             0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           642.8            55.1            51.4
                                                             %CV             2.3             1.3             0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA117.....................            29.8               21.2             609            51.2              55
UFSSA118.....................            29.7               21.1             640            55.0              53
UFSSA119.....................            29.8               21.2             602            50.9              57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW..........................................            St. Dev            20.2             2.3             2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           617.1            52.4            55.0
                                                             %CV             3.3             4.4             3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR_RR1_24....................            29.4               20.9             566            53.7              47
FR_RR1_26....................            29.4               21.1             617            58.7              44
FR_RR1_28....................            29.4               21.0             556            48.6              45
TRC..........................................            St. Dev            32.5             5.0             1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           579.7            53.7            45.4
                                                             %CV             5.6             9.4             3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests....................................            St. Dev            34.3             3.0             4.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           613.2            53.7            50.6
                                                             %CV             5.6             5.7             8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Evenflo Embrace 35--CRABI--Infant--SB3PT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Sled  velocity         Test                          Chest  clip
           Test No.                 (mph)      acceleration  (g)       HIC36         3ms  (g)        RF  angle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RR02-20-12...................            30.0               23.2             560            47.2              50
RR02-20-13...................            29.7               22.9             567            46.9              52
RR02-20-14...................            29.7               23.0             557            46.0              51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calspan......................................            St. Dev             5.2             0.6             0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           561.2            46.7            51.2
                                                             %CV             0.9             1.3             1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFSSA210.....................            29.3               21.7             667            52.0              54
UFSSA211.....................            29.6               21.8             627            49.7              54
UFSSA212.....................            29.3               21.6             623            52.3              52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCW..........................................            St. Dev            24.4             1.4             1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           639.0            51.3            53.6
                                                             %CV             3.8             2.7             2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tests....................................            St. Dev            45.4             2.7             1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average           600.1            49.0            52.4
                                                             %CV             7.6             5.6             3.0