Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:
See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.
AGENCY:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION:
Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
SUMMARY:
This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of the June 2022 final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213a and the December 2023 final rule establishing FMVSS No. 213b. This final rule grants petitions to incorporate a dummy positioning procedure for shield-type child restraint systems (CRSs), clarify test procedure for CRSs with certain types of side impact technologies, remove testing CRSs installed with lap belt only in frontal sled tests, and correct inconsistencies in the regulatory text and figures in FMVSS Nos. 213a and 213b. This final rule also partially grants the petition to align compliance dates between the standards. All other requests are denied.
DATES:
Effective date: November 8, 2024.
Reconsideration date: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by November 25, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this preamble.
Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone can search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues, you may call Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: (202) 366-6345). For legal issues, you may call Matthew Filpi, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: (202) 366-2992). Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency Response
a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With Fixed, Adjustable and Configurable Side Impact Technologies
b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed or Movable Surface To Restrain the Child in FMVSS No. 213a
c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting Angle Tolerance Correction
d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and Protrusion Limits in FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b
e. Removing “At NHTSA's Option” Phrase in S6.1.2
f. Removing 45 Degree CRS Angle at Completion of Test Requirement
g. Correcting Error on Table 1 to S5.1.6
h. Clarifications
III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and Agency Response
a. Aligning Compliance Dates
b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or Changing Sunset Date
c. Unit Conversion Consistency
d. Remove Duplicative Language
e. Registration Card Guidelines
IV. Correction to Regulatory Text
V. Costs and Benefits
VI. Compliance Date and Effective Date
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
On June 30, 2022, NHTSA published a final rule (side impact final rule) (87 FR 39234) amending FMVSS No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” to establish side impact performance requirements for CRSs designed to seat children weighing up to 18.1 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lbs)), or for children in a height range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters (43.3 inches). The side impact performance requirements were established in the new FMVSS No. 213a, “Child restraint systems—side impact protection,” which is referenced by Standard No. 213.
On December 5, 2023, NHTSA published a final rule (frontal test upgrade final rule) (88 FR 84514) amending FMVSS No. 213 and adding FMVSS No. 213b, “Child restraint systems.” The amendments to FMVSS No. 213 modernize the standard by updating the CRS owner registration program, labeling requirements instructing consumers on correct use of child restraints, requirements for add-on school bus-specific child restraint systems, and provisions for NHTSA's use of test dummies in NHTSA compliance tests. The establishment of FMVSS No. 213b will update the standard seat assembly on which NHTSA tests child restraint systems for compliance with frontal crash performance requirements.
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the side impact final rule, from Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc. (Cybex products distributor) and Evenflo (Goodbaby International subsidiary) Inc. (Evenflo). NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the frontal test upgrade final rule from Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) and Evenflo.
Petitions have been docketed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0051-0004.
Petitions have been docketed here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0040-0003.
The petitioners to the side impact final rule requested clarifications on dummy positioning test procedures for shield-type CRSs and on test procedures for CRSs that have adjustable and configurable technologies for side impact. The petitioners also requested minor corrections to the regulatory text of the adopted standard. NHTSA is granting the petitions to incorporate a dummy positioning procedure for shield-type CRSs, correct inconsistencies in the side impact seat assembly mounting angle tolerances in the regulatory text and figures, and correct inconsistent units between the standards. NHTSA is denying the remaining requests from the two petitioners.
The petitioners to the frontal test upgrade final rule requested the following: (1) consolidations of the compliance dates of FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b, (2) removal of tests with CRS installation using Type 1 seat belt or an earlier sunset date for testing CRSs installed with the Type 1 seat belt, (3) minor corrections to the regulatory text of the adopted standards, and, (4) guidance on the new requirements for the registration card. NHTSA is partially granting the request to align the compliance dates and granting the request to remove Type 1 seat belt testing. NHTSA is also making minor corrections to the regulatory text identified by the petitioners. The agency is denying the request for rulemaking to provide guidance on the new registration card requirements.
The compliance date is the date that the applicable products must comply with the rule.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS No. 213a) and Agency Responses
a. Dynamic Test Procedure for CRSs With Fixed, Adjustable, and Configurable Side Impact Technologies
Cybex requested NHTSA clarify how fixed, adjustable, and configurable side impact technologies will be tested in future annual compliance test programs. Cybex explained that previous NHTSA interpretations have deemed “belt tensioning bars, additional straps and support legs” as supplemental devices. Cybex further noted that supplemental devices are not used during compliance testing per the specifications in S6.1.2 of FMVSS No. 213 that no supplemental devices be used to install CRSs.
Cybex explained that neither the dynamic test procedure nor past interpretations Cybex reviewed provide guidance on other aspects of adjusting or use of a child restraint beyond S6.1.2. This section of the standard requires CRS installation in accordance with manufacturer's instructions provided with the CRS.
Cybex asked NHTSA for clarification on (1) whether an adjustment specified in the manufacturer's instruction is allowed to be made prior to or after securing the CRS to the side impact seat assembly (SISA), and (2) whether an adjustment of a technology that is part of the CRS is allowed to be made prior to testing according to this supplemental device requirement.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Cybex's petition to provide informal guidance on the testing procedure outlined in FMVSS No. 213a. Under 49 CFR 553.35, petitions for reconsideration must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an explanation why compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. We do not believe that Cybex has met its burden of explaining why the FMVSS No. 213a test procedure is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. Instead, Cybex's petition simply requests guidance on how NHTSA would test CRSs under FMVSS No. 213a. NHTSA does not provide informal guidance in responses to petitions for reconsideration.
Although we will not be providing guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a's test procedures apply to the adjustable side impact technology discussed by Cybex, we do think this issue is worth addressing. Instead of addressing it here in the form of guidance, we plan to initiate a rulemaking on this issue. FMVSS No. 213a is new requirement that does not take effect until June of 2025. Accordingly, when NHTSA published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 2014 proposing side impact protection requirements for child restraint systems, the agency could not predict how child restraint manufacturers would choose to comply with the standard. Additionally, no commenters discussed this technology during the NPRM stage. NHTSA conducted rigorous testing to ensure that the requirements of FMVSS No. 213a were practicable, but as is the case with many of our standards, manufacturers innovate to meet the requirements of our standards. This is the case with the adjustable side impact technology Cybex discusses in its petition for reconsideration. Accordingly, the agency could not have considered how to test with this technology since it did not exist when the requirements were proposed and how popular these designs would become.
Because the agency has limited test experience with adjustable side impact technology, we cannot yet speak to any safety benefits associated with it. The agency plans to continue its research and testing to determine if and how FMVSS No. 213a should be amended to accommodate for this technology. The agency also plans to consider potential misuse and how restraints with this technology perform under the test procedures outlined in FMVSS No. 213a with and without the technology deployed.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is denying Cybex's request to provide guidance on how FMVSS No. 213a's test procedures apply to deployable side impact technology.
b. Arm Positioning for CRSs With a Fixed or Movable Surface To Restrain the Child in FMVSS No. 213a
Cybex noted that the current FMVSS No. 213 allows the use of a forward restraining surface ( e.g., shield) in lieu of a harness. However, Cybex states the side impact final rule did not consider CRSs that use a forward restraining surface. Cybex argued that the 25-degree dummy arm positioning required in the new FMVSS No. 213a standard could not be met in forward facing CRSs with restraining surfaces. Accordingly, Cybex requested clarification regarding test dummy arm positioning for CRSs with restraining surfaces. Cybex also asked whether placing the dummy's arm above the forward restraining surface would be considered as “inhibiting the torso or head movement.” Cybex noted that if this interaction is considered as “inhibiting the torso or head movement,” it requested clarification on the allowable limb position.
Cybex provided a picture of a shield-type CRS with a dummy to exemplify. The petition can be found at Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0051-0004.
Agency Response: NHTSA is granting Cybex's request to specify arm placement in FMVSS No. 213a testing for shield-type CRSs where the arm cannot be placed at a 25-degree angle. As background, FMVSS No. 213a specifies a procedure in S9.2(d) and S9.3(d) to position the Q3s dummy's arm in CRSs that can be used forward-facing and/or rear-facing. The arm is rotated downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm engages the Q3s detent that positions the arm at a 25-degree angle with respect to the thorax. However, some CRS designs equipped with a fixed or movable surface that restrain the dummy may prevent the arm from engaging the detent to position the arm at a 25-degree angle with respect to the thorax.
Fixed or movable CRS surfaces are described in S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 213 and S5.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 213b.
There are no CRSs with a fixed or movable surface that restrain the child in the U.S. market currently.
Section 10.2.2(d) of FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b specifies positioning the arm of dummies by rotating the limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the CRS or the standard seat assembly. This test procedure applies to all the dummies used in FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b. The procedure provides for consistent positioning of the dummy's arms for all CRSs, including the ones equipped with a fixed or movable surface that restrain the child in FMVSS No. 213.
In response to Cybex's petition, NHTSA is specifying use of the FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b arm positioning procedure for the Q3s dummy in FMVSS No. 213a for those CRSs equipped with a fixed or movable surface that restrain the child and in which the specified 25-degree arm angle cannot be reached. The 25-degree angle is specified for side impact testing, positioning the arm to expose the thorax to directly contact the intruding door or CRS side structure. This arm positioning procedure produces a more repeatable test. Utilizing the FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b arm positioning procedure for positioning the Q3s dummy in FMVSS No. 213a will still achieve NHTSA's goal to position the arm in a manner that exposes the thorax so that it directly contacts the intruding door or CRS side structure during 213a testing. An arm positioned at a 25-degree angle or (slightly) higher would likely not be considered to “inhibit the torso or head movement.”
If the CRS design results in a Q3s dummy arm position high enough that it interacts with the head (inhibiting head movement) during testing, the CRS design may need to be changed to prevent this from happening. NHTSA does not expect the arm position to be high enough to interact with the dummy's head in known shield-type CRSs. But NHTSA will evaluate this issue on a case-by-case basis.
c. Side Impact Seat Assembly Mounting Angle Tolerance Correction
FMVSS No. 213a adopted requirements to attach the SISA to the sled test platform so the Seat Orientation Reference Line (SORL) of the seat is at a 10-degree angle counter-clockwise from the perpendicular to the travel direction of the test platform. Evenflo noted that the regulatory text has a discrepancy in the angle tolerance specified in S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. Section 6.1.1(a)(1) specifies the SISA is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL is 10 ±0.1 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform travel. Figure 2A specifies this angle to be 10 ±1 degrees. Evenflo requested clarification on the discrepancy between the text and the drawing.
Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal line through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1 to § 571.213a.
Agency Response: The ±0.1 tolerance of the SISA mounting angle specified in S6.1.1(a)(1) is incorrect. NHTSA is granting Evenflo's petition to correct the discrepancy in the mounting angle tolerance between S6.1.1(a)(1) and Figure 2A. NHTSA is specifying the correct tolerance in S6.1.1(a)(1) so that it indicates an angle of 10 ±1 degrees, making it consistent with Figure 2A.
d. Fix Inconsistent Units for Radius and Protrusion Limits in FMVSS Nos. 213, 213b and 213a
Evenflo requested NHTSA specify the protrusion dimensions requirements existing in both FMVSS No. 213 and 213a in the same units. Evenflo noted that FMVSS No. 213 uses inches while FMVSS No. 213a uses millimeters. Evenflo argued that this discrepancy can lead to confusion in application and interpretation of the standard.
Agency Response: NHTSA agrees that the units for the same protrusion dimension requirements should be the same in FMVSS Nos. 213 (S5.1.1(a) and S5.2.4), 213a (S5.1.1(a) and S5.1.4) and 213b (S5.1.1(a) and S5.2.4). NHTSA is granting this petition and will change the units of FMVSS No. 213 and 213b to millimeters to be consistent with FMVSS No. 213a.
e. Removing “at NHTSA's Option” Phrase in S6.1.2
Evenflo sought clarification regarding the phrase “at NHTSA's option” in the FMVSS No. 213b Dynamic Test Procedure section (S6.1.2). Evenflo explained that the section is followed by test procedures with each of the attachment methods. Evenflo added that none of the attachments are optional for a manufacturer when it is certifying compliance with FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213a. Evenflo argued that if “at NHTSA's option” refers to test options available to NHTSA as part of its annual test compliance program, then the language is more appropriate for test procedures and not in the regulation.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Evenflo's petition to remove the phrase “at NHTSA's option” from the regulatory text. This phrase is included to make clear that NHTSA may conduct the compliance test with a CRS attached in any or all of its attachment modes. NHTSA notes that the agency's safety standards specify the test conditions and procedures that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment (such as CRSs) being tested for compliance to the safety standard. While manufacturers are required to certify their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested in accordance with the standard and exercise due care in doing so, they are not specifically required to test their CRSs the way NHTSA tests child restraints in a compliance test.
f. Removing 45 Degrees CRS Angle at Completion of Test Requirement
Evenflo questioned whether the requirement in S5.1.1 (c) that does not allow the angle between the system's back support for the child and the system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion of the test is needed as it is already required in the FMVSS No. 213 frontal dynamic test. Evenflo also argued that that the frontal force (fore/aft vehicle direction) component in the side impact test is small compared to the side (lateral vehicle direction) component, and, small compared to the frontal component of the frontal crash in FMVSS No. 213.
The sled test forces acting upon a CRS can be represented as a 3-dimentional force vector. The portion of that force vector that is parallel to the fore/aft (frontal) “vehicle” direction is the frontal component of the force vector. The FMVSS No. 213a sliding seat test fixture (representing the vehicle seat) is at a 10 degree angle to the sled's direction of travel during the test. Defining test forces based upon a coordinate system fixed to the seat fixture, there are frontal, lateral, and vertical components to the forces.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying this petition, and will retain the S5.1.1 (c) requirement. While the side impact test has a small longitudinal component, NHTSA believes this requirement will ensure CRS integrity in a broader range of crash environments. While the agency has not seen any CRSs fail to meet this requirement during our testing, the CRS market is constantly evolving, with manufacturers introducing new designs into the market every year. This requirement will ensure that future designs perform adequately in a side impact crash as well as a frontal crash.
g. Correcting Error on Table 1 in Paragraph S5.1.6
Evenflo commented that Table 1 in paragraph S5.1.6 (installation) does not match the means of installation indicated in S6.1.2.
Agency Response: After reviewing the table example Evenflo showed in its petition, we note that the table in Evenflo's petition was taken from the web version of the June 2022 final rule in the docket system, and the web version had a formatting error. However, the June 2022 final rule in the Federal Register and the electronic Code of Federal Regulations display the correct table. Since receiving Evenflo's comment, the docket system has corrected the table formatting and now displays the correct table.
Link to the electronic code of federal regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.213a.
h. Clarifications
Evenflo requested several clarifications regarding the contactable surfaces and protrusion limitation requirements. These clarification requests included:
(1) If materials such as soft goods, padding, energy absorbing materials or elements, or flexible materials are permanently affixed to another component, whether the underlying component is considered contactable.
(2) Whether the portion of the shell that is adjacent to the headrest is considered contactable in CRSs with an adjustable headrest.
(3) Whether a contactable surface varies based on the size of the test dummy or associated with the largest dummy for a given use configuration.
(4) Whether energy absorbing materials integrated to the system's structures are considered padding and flexible overlay materials and whether they would be removed prior to inspection.
(5) Whether energy absorbing material that is attached with mechanical fasteners (push pins, tape or glue, etc.) is considered padding or part of the structure to be evaluated for the protrusion limitations.
Agency Response: NHTSA is denying Evenflo's clarifications request. The protrusion limitation requirements in question are not specific to FMVSS No. 213a and have been present in FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.4) since 1979. The 2014 NPRM proposing the side impact requirements for FMVSS No. 213 (79FR4570) proposed the same existing protrusion limitation requirements. There have been no changes to the protrusion limitation requirements and NHTSA did not receive comments regarding the existing protrusion limitation requirements in the 2014 NPRM proposing side impact requirements for CRS. This requirement was also unchanged during the frontal test upgrade rulemaking, as no proposed changes or comments were received during that rulemaking either. Therefore, this request is out of scope for a petition for reconsideration.
III. Petitions for Reconsideration (FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213b) and Agency Response
a. Aligning Compliance Dates
One petitioner, JPMA, urged NHTSA to align the required compliance dates for FMVSS No, 213 (December 5, 2024), FMVSS No. 213a (June 30, 2025) and FMVSS No. 213b (December 5, 2026) to avoid unnecessary costs. JPMA argued that the current compliance schedule would result in duplicative efforts regarding “instruction and label revisions, tooling modifications, model testing and certification processes, marketing materials and more, adding unnecessary costs and challenges.” JPMA explained that every modification triggers a change to the Universal Product Code. JPMA stated that such a change results in product histories and customer reviews starting over for new products, which reduces consumer confidence in established products and brands. JPMA stated that these changes also disrupt retailer relationships with changing product models that sometimes result in buybacks of older versions of the products.
JPMA suggested that the compliance date for the changes to the three standards be aligned with the FMVSS No. 213b compliance date (December 5, 2026) to avoid any unnecessary burdens and to minimize costs for manufacturers. As an alternative, JPMA suggested aligning the labeling changes of FMVSS No. 213 and the side impact requirements in FMVSS No. 213a to a December 5, 2025, compliance date. JPMA explained that this date is favorable for the manufacturers to avoid challenges of midyear product changes and would allow them five additional months to work on the new FMVSS No. 213a side impact requirements.
Agency Response: NHTSA is partially granting JPMA's petition to align the FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b compliance dates. In the side impact final rule, we discussed that the agency did not see a reason to delay the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a, or to shorten the lead time for FMVSS No. 213b. The agency explained that making the compliance dates of the two rules coincide had some merit but the consequences of aligning the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a with that of FMVSS No. 213b would delay the significant safety benefits of side impact protection and thereby outweigh any such merit.
The FMVSS No. 213a side impact final rule calculated an annual reduction of 3.7 fatalities and 41 serious non-fatal injuries.
With the option for early compliance, manufacturers have flexibility in deciding when to meet these updated standards. FMVSS No. 213b test results showed that some current CRS designs already meet performance requirements using the new sled text fixture. CRS manufacturers will have an opportunity for early compliance for their CRS models that need no change or only need small design changes, and if desired, to voluntarily comply with the FMVSS No. 213b requirements by the June 30, 2025, compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a to reduce their burden.
To alleviate some of JPMA's concerns on duplicative efforts due to the different compliance dates, we are aligning the updates to FMVSS No. 213 from the frontal test upgrade final rule and the side impact final rule to a single compliance date of June 30, 2025. This action partially grants JPMA's petition. The compliance date alignment will reduce unnecessary burdens through minimization of costs to manufacturers caused by multiple model number changes for a particular CRS design in a short period of time. This change provides an additional 6-7 months for manufacturers to align their labeling and registration card designs and launch them together along with the side impact changes.
One of JPMA's requests was to align the FMVSS No. 213 and FMVSS No. 213a compliance dates to the December 5, 2025, compliance date for FMVSS No. 213b. As noted earlier, delaying the compliance date of FMVSS No. 213a would delay the significant safety benefits from improved side impact protection afforded to children seated in applicable CRSs. Additionally, delaying the FMVSS No. 213 labeling and registration card changes that were finalized in the December 5, 2023 frontal test upgrade final rule notice by an additional year (December 5, 2025) would delay the safety benefits garnered from these updates. NHTSA is granting a little over 6 months delay in requiring compliance with the labeling and registration updates to reduce manufacturer's burden of introducing products to the market multiple times. NHTSA believes this approach reduces burden to manufacturers without significantly impacting the realization of benefits from the updated labeling requirements and does not see need to further delay the benefits. Therefore, NHTSA is denying the petition to align the FMVSS Nos. 213 and 213a compliance date to December 2025.
NHTSA estimated potentially 0.7 to 2.3 lives will be saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical severity injuries prevented annually when all CRSs in the fleet have the updated labels.
b. Removing Type 1 Seat Belt Testing or Changing Sunset Date
JPMA expressed concerns with retaining Type 1 belt testing until 2029 without the opportunity for regulatory comment. JPMA claimed that the testing is duplicative considering that CRSs would already be tested with lower anchors and Type 2 belts. JPMA added that NHTSA should consider the time for product validation required by the other changes to FMVSS Nos. 213, 213a and 213b that will require new full evaluations and would delay development of future CRS models.
JPMA argued that the data presented in the side impact final rule where NHTSA estimated “36% of the 2022 light duty vehicle fleet are of model years (MY) 2000-2007 that do not have Type 2 belts in all rear seating positions” is faulty. JPMA noted that in a 2004 final rule (69 FR 70904) amending FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” the agency stated that approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and 49% of the light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear center seat. JPMA argued that the data presented showed the sunset date of September 1, 2029, to remove Type 1 seat belt testing, exceeds the objective stated in the final rule of 90 percent of vehicle having Type 2 belts in the rear center seat.
JPMA urged NHTSA to remove the unnecessarily duplicative testing with Type 1 belts to move towards NHTSA's stated goal of encouraging future CRS designs that take advantage of the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt to reduce excursions or to recalculate the sunset date based on more complete vehicle data.
Agency Response: NHTSA is granting JPMA's petition to remove Type 1 seat belt CRS (other than harnesses) installation testing in FMVSS No. 213b. Additionally, NHTSA has decided to amend a labeling requirement relating to Type 1 seat belts in FMVSS No. 213 as part of the agency's response to this petition.
Per the December 5, 2023 final rule, harnesses will continue to be tested only with a Type 1 belt. Type 1 belt installation testing for harnesses was not meant to sunset in the final rule.
i. Removing Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing from FMVSS No. 213b. While JPMA pointed to a 2004 final rule (69 FR 70904) where NHTSA indicated that “approximately 77% of the passenger car fleet and 49% of the light truck and van (LTV) fleet had Type 2 belts in the rear center seat,” JPMA is incorrect in its understanding of that data. We note that this percentage did not reflect the vehicle fleet at the time but instead referred to the percentage of vehicles that provided Type 2 seat belts in model year (MY) 2000 vehicles. However, NHTSA recognizes that the estimates from the December 2023 final rule do not take into account vehicles older than MY 2008 that voluntarily provided Type 2 seat belts; therefore, the agency acknowledges that the estimates of Type 1 availability in the fleet (36 percent) should be reevaluated.
This is analysis explained in the Final Economic Assessment of the 2004 final rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2004-18726-0002.
To more accurately calculate the percentage of vehicles in the fleet without Type 2 seat belts, NHTSA calculated this percentage with estimates that include the percentages of vehicles that voluntarily provided Type 2 seat belts in vehicles older than MY 2008 to decide whether the sunset of Type 1 seat belt CRS installation testing should be changed. Model year 2008 vehicles or newer are required to have Type 2 belts in rear center seats, so there would be no Type 1 seat belts in the rear center seating position for those vehicles.
NHTSA used a 2015 study for estimated percentages of vehicles older than MY 2008 with rear center Type 1 seat belts. The study determined 59.9 percent of cars and 71.7 percent of light trucks and vans (LTVs) for MY 2007 and earlier had rear center Type 1 seat belts. NHTSA multiplied those shares by the 2022 total vehicle registrations to estimate the percentage of vehicles that have Type 1 belts in rear center seating positions. NHTSA estimated that 15 percent of the light duty fleet in 2022 had rear center Type 1 seat belts. NHTSA then applied vehicle survivability schedules to estimate future fleet estimates of vehicles with rear center Type 1 seat belts. Estimates show that in 2026, only 9 percent of vehicles in the fleet are expected to have rear center lap belts.
Kahane, C.J., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Lives saved by vehicle safety technologies and associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012—Passenger cars and LTVs—With reviews of 26 FMVSS and the effectiveness of their associated safety technologies in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes” (report No. DOT HS 812 069) (Jan. 2015). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069.
Vehicle registration data for passenger vehicles (cars and light trucks) were obtained from R.L. Polk's National Vehicle Population Profile (NVPP). The Polk data set is a compilation of all passenger vehicles that have been registered in compliance with State requirements. (R.L. Polk is a foundation of IHS Markit automotive solutions.)
Table 1—Rear Center Type 1 Seat Belt Availability in the Vehicle Fleet by Year
| Year | Rear center lap belt share (%) |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 15.0 |
| 2023 | 13.4 |
| 2024 | 11.8 |
| 2025 | 10.3 |
| 2026 | 9.0 |
Table 2 to S5.1.3.1 (a) —Add-On Child Restraints That Can Be Used Forward-Facing
| When this type of child restraint system | Is tested in accordance with— | These excursion limits apply | Explanatory note: in the test specified in 2nd column, the excursion requirement must be met when the child restraint system is attached to the test seat assembly in the manner described below, subject to certain conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| All harnesses | S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) | Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with lap belt; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is attached. |
| Restraints designed for use by children with physical disabilities | S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) | Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with lap and shoulder belt; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is attached. |
| School bus child restraint systems | S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) | Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with seat back mount, or seat back and seat pan mounts. |
| Booster seats | S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii) | Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is attached. |
| Child restraint systems other than harnesses, restraints designed for use by children with physical disabilities, school bus child restraint systems, and booster seats | S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B) | Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with a lap and shoulder belt; without a tether attached. Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage system; without a tether attached. |
| Child restraint systems other than harnesses, restraints designed for use by children with physical disabilities, school bus child restraint systems | S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C) | Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with a lap and shoulder belt, with a tether attached. Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage system, with a tether attached. |
| Child restraint systems equipped with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 that has belts that are not an integral part of that fixed or movable surface | S6.1.2(a)(2) | Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm | Attached with lap and shoulder belt or lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage system; no tether is attached. |
Table 4 for S5.3.2 Means of Installation for Child Restraint Systems
| Type of add-on child restraint system | Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed | Type 2 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed | Type 2 seat belt assembly | Lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system plus a tether, if needed | Lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system | Seat back mount, or, seat back mount, and, seat pan mount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| School bus child restraint systems | X | |||||
| Harnesses | X | |||||
| Car beds | X | |||||
| Rear-facing restraints | X | X | ||||
| Booster seats | X | |||||
| All other child restraint systems | X | X | X | X |