Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems-Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference rule (2022)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems-Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference rule is a significant rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) effective August 1, 2022, that amended federal vehicle safety standards to improve the protection of children in child restraint systems. NHTSA issued this rule pursuant to the authority delegated to them under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems-Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference
  • Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Standard No. 213 set collision testing requirements for child restraint systems, as front and side collisions account for the most child-occupant vehicle deaths, according to the rule. The standards only required child restraint system manufacturers to test protection equipment for front and rear crashes, though NHTSA said side crashes can sometimes be more dangerous for occupants. Accordingly—pursuant to the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act— NHTSA published the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems-Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference rule to establish side crash testing standards for child restraint systems.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ This final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) (Standard) No. 213, 'Child restraint systems,' and adds FMVSS No. 213a, which is referenced by Standard No. 213. This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate set forth in the 'Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act' (MAP–21) that directed the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to issue a final rule to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.[1][2] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213, 'Child restraint systems,' to establish side impact performance requirements for child restraint systems (CRS) designed to seat children weighing up to 18.1 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)), or for children in a height range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters (43.3 inches.) The side impact performance requirements are established in a new FMVSS No. 213a, which is referenced by Standard No. 213. This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate set forth in MAP–21 that directed the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to issue a final rule to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.

    Standard No. 213a requires child restraints designed to seat children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb), or for children in a height range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters (43.3 inches) to meet performance criteria when tested in a dynamic test replicating a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact. The child restraints must provide proper restraint, manage side crash forces, and protect against harmful head and chest contact with intruding structures. In addition, child restraints will be required to meet other performance requirements in the sled test to ensure, among other things, the restraint can withstand crash forces from a side impact without collapsing or fragmenting in a manner that could harm the child. This new standard will reduce the number of children killed or injured in side crashes.[2]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the rule states that OMB deemed this rule significant, but not economically significant:

    “ This rulemaking is considered 'significant' and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, 'Regulatory Planning and Review.'[2] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Federal Register, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems-Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference," February 1, 2024.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Standards;_Child_Restraint_Systems,_Child_Restraint_Systems-Side_Impact_Protection,_Incorporation_by_Reference_rule_(2022)&oldid=10361170"