Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69388-69459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21477]

[[Page 69387]]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 212

November 2, 2020

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems,
Incorporation by Reference; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 212 / Monday, November 2, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 69388]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0093]
RIN 2127-AL34

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems,
Incorporation by Reference

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21), this document proposes to amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,''
by updating the standard seat assembly on which child restraint systems
(CRSs) are tested to determine their compliance with the standard's
dynamic performance requirements. This NPRM proposes other amendments
to modernize FMVSS No. 213, including a lessening of restrictions in
some of the standard's owner registration and labeling requirements, to
give manufacturers more flexibility in communicating with today's
parents for the purposes of increasing owner registrations for recall
notification purposes and increasing the correct use of CRSs,
respectively. NHTSA is also proposing ways to streamline the Agency's
use of test dummies to assess restraint performance, including
simplifying the standard's compliance tests to make them more
reflective of the real-world use of CRSs today. The purpose of these
and other proposals is to modernize the seat assembly and other aspects
of FMVSS No. 213, to help ensure the continued effectiveness of CRSs in
current and future vehicles.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2021.
Proposed effective date: 180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register.
Proposed compliance date: Three years following the date of
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, with optional
early compliance permitted.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document 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, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9332 before
coming.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, the agency encourages commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their organization; however,
submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters
identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9322 before coming. 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) (fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax:
202-366-3820). 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
a. Background
b. Overview of this NPRM and Request for Comment
II. Statutory Mandate
a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle
Safety Act'')
b. MAP-21
c. NHTSA's Views
III. Updating the Representative Seat Assembly
a. Background on This Proposed Seat Assembly
b. Consistency with the Side Impact Bench
c. Seat Geometry
1. Seat Back Angle
2. Seat Pan Angle
3. Seat Pan Length
4. Seat Back Height
5. Rear Seat Cushions
i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion
ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat Cushion
iii. The Foam is Suitable for Use in the Standard's Dynamic Test
iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam
v. Summary of Seat Assembly Features
6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features
d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations
e. Child Restraint Anchorage System Locations
IV. Installing CRSs with a Type 2 Belt Rather Than a Type 1 Belt
V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor
VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash Pulse
a. Introduction
b. Safety Need--Crash Data Analysis
c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files
d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30 MPH Test Speed
e. Sled Testing of CRSs
f. Agency Decision
VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New Seat Assembly Designs
a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly Design (V1)
b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly Design (V2)
VIII. Communicating with Today's Parents
a. CRS Owner Registration
1. Background
2. Overview
3. Proposed Changes to the Registration Program
i. Information Card
ii. Mail-in Card
iii. Electronic Registration Form
iv. Information on Labels and in Owners' Manuals
b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs
1. Removing Requirements for Specific Wording
2. Labeling of Use Information
3. Deleting S5.5.2(k)(2)
4. Other Requests of Evenflo and Safe Ride News Petition
IX. Streamlining NHTSA's Use of ATDs in Compliance Tests to Reflect
CRS Use Today
a. Introduction
b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 10-13.6 kg (22-30 lb)
c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb)

[[Page 69389]]

d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 18-29.5 kg (40-65 lb)
e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII-3YO Dummy in Rear-Facing
CRSs
f. Table Summarizing Proposed Amendments
g. Consistency with NHTSA's Use of ATDs in the Proposed Side
Impact Test
X. School Bus CRSs
XI. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising from Research Findings
XII. Proposed Lead Time
XIII. Corrections and Other Minor Amendments
a. Correct Reference
b. Section 5.1.2.2
c. Table to S5.1.3.1(a) and Test Configuration II
d. Updating reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1
XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
XV. Public Participation
XVI. Appendix to Preamble

I. Executive Summary

Consistent with MAP-21, NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to
update the standard seat assembly on which child restraint systems
(CRSs) are tested for compliance with the standard's dynamic
performance requirements. NHTSA also proposes lessening restrictions in
some of the standard's owner registration requirements to give
manufacturers more flexibility to use current ways of communication for
the purposes of increasing owner registrations for recall notification
purposes. This NPRM proposes to lessen restrictions on the labeling
requirements so manufacturers have the flexibility to provide CRS use
information in statements, or a combination of statements and
pictograms, in their own words at locations that they deem most
effective in instructing caregivers on the correct use of the CRS. This
NPRM also proposes ways to streamline the Agency's use of test dummies
to assess restraint performance, including simplifying NHTSA's
compliance tests to make them more reflective of the real-world use of
CRSs today. In addition, NHTSA proposes amendments to FMVSS No. 213 to
make the standard more design-neutral in accommodating CRSs that are
designed for exclusive use on school bus seats.\1\ Lastly, NHTSA
requests comment on several developments in child passenger safety,
including the findings of research studies that raise safety concerns
associated with some types of CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Currently, FMVSS No. 213 only permits a type of school bus
``harness.'' The proposed amendments would permit designs other than
harnesses for this type of CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Background

FMVSS No. 213 applies to all new child restraint systems (``CRSs''
or ``child restraints'') sold in this country. FMVSS No. 213 specifies
performance requirements that must be met in a dynamic frontal sled
test involving a 48 kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per hour (mph))
velocity change, which is representative of a severe crash. Each child
restraint is tested with an anthropomorphic test device (``ATD'' or
``test dummy'') while attached to a standardized seat assembly
representative of a passenger vehicle seat (``standard seat
assembly''). Currently, CRSs for infants and toddlers must meet minimum
performance requirements when attached to the standard seat assembly by
means of a lap belt. In addition, those CRSs must also meet those
requirements in separate tests when attached by means of the lower
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.\2\ Belt-positioning
(booster) seats are tested on the standard seat assembly using a lap
and shoulder belt, since the booster seats are specially designed to
raise the child on a platform to obtain a proper fit of the vehicle lap
and shoulder belts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See 49 CFR 571.225.
\3\ There is also a 32 km/h (20 mph) test configuration for CRSs
that have a certain type of torso restraint to ensure that the CRSs
provide at least a minimum level of protection when the torso
restraint is misused. See FMVSS No. 213 S6.1.1(b)(2), ``Test
Configuration II.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Child restraints are highly effective in reducing the likelihood of
death and injury in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA estimates that, for
children less than 1 year old, a child restraint can reduce the risk of
fatality by 71 percent when used in a passenger car and by 58 percent
when used in a pickup truck, van, or sport utility vehicle (SUV)
(``light truck''). Child restraint effectiveness for children between
the ages of 1 and 4 years old is 54 percent in passenger cars and 59
percent in light trucks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Traffic Safety Facts--Children 2012 Data (April 2016).
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812491. Last
accessed on Aug 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Overview of this NPRM and Request for Comment

The main topics discussed in this document are highlighted below.
This document retrospectively reviews and proposes revisions to FMVSS
No. 213 to modernize the seat assembly and remove obsolete provisions
from the standard. The Agency's goal is to ensure the continued
effectiveness of CRSs in current and future vehicles, thereby reducing
the unreasonable risk of injury to children in motor vehicle crashes.
(All references below are to subparagraphs in FMVSS No. 213 unless
otherwise noted.)
1. As directed by Sec. 31501(b) of MAP-21, NHTSA proposes to amend
the standard seat assembly (S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii)) so that it more closely
resembles ``a single representative motor vehicle rear seat.'' The
updated seat would have a seat cushion stiffness, seat geometry, and
seat belt system (a lap/shoulder belt) (3-point or Type 2 belt system)
that better represents rear seats of current passenger vehicle models.
Given that Type 2 belts are required to be installed in passenger
vehicles today, NHTSA proposes that CRSs meet the performance
requirements of the standard while attached to the seat assembly with a
Type 2 belt. We propose to delete, as obsolete, the current provisions
in FMVSS No. 213 requiring CRSs to meet the standard's requirements
when attached to the seat assembly with a lap belt (2-point or Type 1
belt) (S5.3.2).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ ``Type 1'' and ``Type 2'' seat belt assemblies are defined
in FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat belt assemblies.'' This NPRM would not
change the current requirement that CRSs also need to meet FMVSS No.
213 requirements while attached using a child restraint anchorage
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although features of the standard seat assembly will be updated,
NHTSA believes that the differences between the updated and current
seat assemblies will not significantly affect the performance of CRSs
in meeting FMVSS No. 213. In developing this NPRM, NHTSA tested a wide
variety of CRS designs in the market using the updated seat assembly.
These CRSs had been certified by their manufacturers as meeting FMVSS
No. 213's performance criteria using the current seat assembly in the
standard (which is representative of designs of older vehicle seats).
In the tests on the updated seat assembly, all of the CRSs also met the
standard's performance requirements. These data indicate that new CRSs
that will be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213 on the new standard
seat assembly will perform as well in older model year vehicles.
2. To make FMVSS No. 213 more responsive to the communication
preferences and practices of today's parents and to provide greater
flexibility to manufacturers in responding to those preferences, this
NPRM proposes to reduce the restrictions on the content and format of
the owner registration card manufacturers must provide with new CRSs
for purposes of recall notifications (S5.8). Manufacturers would still
be required to provide the means to register by mail, but, at their
option, would be able to use modern means of outreach and information

[[Page 69390]]

exchange and take advantage of the latest innovative technologies to
increase owner registration rates.
3. To improve FMVSS No. 213's labeling requirements to better
instruct parents how best to use CRSs correctly, the NPRM proposes
amendments to the labeling requirements (S5.5). FMVSS No. 213 currently
requires manufacturers to label CRSs with information on the maximum
height and weight of the children who can safely occupy the system
(S5.5.2(f)). NHTSA believes there is a continued need for this ``use
information'' to be permanently labeled on CRSs. However, to clarify
the information, the NPRM proposes requiring that the information must
be provided for each mode in which the CRS can be used (rear-facing,
forward-facing, booster). Further, NHTSA proposes to lessen
restrictions on the use information (S5.5, S5.6) by deleting
requirements that prescribe specific wording about the height and
weight ranges of children for whom the CRS is recommended and that
specify that the label must be placed along other required statements
in a warning label (S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i))). Instead, NHTSA
proposes that, subject to the conditions listed below, manufacturers
should have the flexibility to provide the use information in
statements, or a combination of statements and pictograms, at visible
locations that manufacturers deem most effective.
The proposed conditions are based on sound best practice
recommendations developed by the child passenger safety community, or
are derived from our analyses of available data and other technical
information. Manufacturers would have considerable flexibility to
optimize the use information they provide for their CRSs, provided that
the information meets these conditions.
Currently S5.5.2(f) requires child restraints to be
labeled with the overall maximum and minimum height and weight ranges
of the children for whom the CRS is recommended. In response to a
petition for rulemaking from Evenflo and SafeRide News,\6\ NHTSA
proposes that, for CRSs that can be used in multiple ``modes''
depending on the height and weight of the child (rear-facing, forward-
facing, booster, etc.), the use information must be stated separately
for each mode. To illustrate, instead of stating that a CRS (that can
be used rear-facing and forward-facing) is for use by children weighing
5 to 65 lb (2.2-29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48 inches (121.9
centimeters (cm)), the label would indicate that the CRS is for use
rear-facing by children weighing 5 to 40 lb (2.2 to 18.2 kg) and with
heights up to 48 inches (121.9 cm), and forward-facing by children
weighing 30 to 65 lb (13.6 to 29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48 inches
(121.9 cm). The proposed condition would protect children under age 1-
year \7\ better by providing greater assurance that they are not turned
forward-facing too soon. The proposed condition would also provide
better guidance to caregivers on when to graduate a child from a rear-
facing CRS to a forward-facing CRS with integral internal harness (car
safety seat) and to a CRS in the booster seat mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A copy of the May 13, 2011 petition for rulemaking is in the
docket. NHTSA is granting this request; this document denies other
aspects of the petition.
\7\ NHTSA and the entire child passenger safety community
strongly recommend that children be kept riding rear-facing at least
up to the age of 1-year. Children under age 1 are safer rear-facing
than forward-facing because in a crash the forces will be spread
evenly across the child's back and shoulders, the strongest part of
the child's body. Further, the back of the head rests against and is
supported by the seating surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relatedly, the following condition better ensures a child
under age 1 will be positioned rear-facing than forward-facing. A child
under age 1 is safest transported rear-facing. In seeking to achieve
that end, FMVSS No. 213 currently specifies that forward-facing CRSs
can only be recommended for children with a minimum weight of 9 kg (20
lb) (S5.5.2(k)(2)). However, the 9 kg (20 lb) threshold is too low.
Although NHTSA meant for that weight to be a minimum, many CRSs use a
weight of only 9 kg (20 lb), stating on their labels that a child may
be forward-facing starting when he or she is 20 lb. NHTSA would like to
raise the standard's 20-lb threshold because it is too low to capture a
sufficient population of one-year-olds, as 9 kg (20 lb) is about the
weight of an average 9-month-old. To increase the number of children
under age 1 who are transported rear-facing, NHTSA proposes to raise
this weight threshold to 12 kg (26.5 lb), which is the weight of a 95th
percentile one-year-old.\8\ The Agency believes that the change to 26.5
lb would capture almost all one-year-olds and would therefore increase
the number of children under age 1 transported rear-facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A 50th percentile 1-year-old weighs 22 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following condition would enhance the protection of 3-
to 4-year-old children traveling in motor vehicles. While FMVSS No. 213
currently specifies that booster seats can only be recommended for
children with a minimum weight of 30 lb (S5.5.2(k)(2)), NHTSA
tentatively believes this minimum should be raised to 18.4 kg (40 lb).
Crash data \9\ show that, among 3- and 4-year-olds, the risk of non-
incapacitating to fatal injury \10\ increases as much as 27 percent
when the child is restrained in a booster seat rather than in a car
safety seat (a CRS that has an integral internal harness). An 18.4 kg
(40 lb) threshold corresponds generally to the weight of a 97th
percentile 3-year-old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and an 85th percentile 4-
year-old. NHTSA believes that if booster seats were only recommended
for children weighing a minimum of 18.4 kg (40 lb), more 3- and 4-year-
olds will be transported in car safety seats, where they are better
protected at that young age, than in booster seats. Booster seats are
and continue to be a critical type of child restraint needed to
restrain children properly in vehicles.\11\ Children will still
transition to booster seats, but just when they are a little larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ ``Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on CDS and
State Data,'' NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 811 338, July 2010.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811338.pdf, last accessed on
August 8, 2018.
\10\ The KABCO injury scale used is an on-the-scene police-
reported measure of injury. ``K'' is killed, ``A'' is incapacitating
injury, ``B'' is non-incapacitating injury and ``C'' is possible
injury.
\11\ NHTSA instructs that children should be restrained in a CRS
for the child's age and size. From birth through adulthood, children
should be restrained first using a rear-facing car seat, then a
forward-facing car seat, then a booster seat, and finally, the
vehicle's seat belts. https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. To simplify and make more realistic the Agency's compliance
testing of child restraint systems with various anthropomorphic test
devices (ATDs) (test dummies), this NPRM proposes the following
changes.
NHTSA proposes streamlining the Agency's selection of ATDs
(test dummies) to assess CRS performance (S7). NHTSA would amend
specifications for ATD selection (S7.1.2(c)) so that CRSs for children
weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) would be tested with just the
12-month-old child test dummy (Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction
(CRABI-12MO)), and would no longer be subject to being tested with the
Hybrid III 3-year-old (HIII-3YO) test dummy. This proposed change would
better align the dummy used in tests of infant carriers \12\ with the
size and weight of children typically restrained in infant carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed to be
readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It has a carrying handle
that enables caregivers to tote the CRS plus child outside of the
vehicle. Some come with a base that stays inside the vehicle onto
which the carrier attaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, NHTSA proposes amendments affecting CRSs
labeled for children weighing from 13.6 kg to 18.2

[[Page 69391]]

kg (30 to 40 lb). Currently, these CRSs are tested with the CRABI-12MO
and the HIII-3YO. NHTSA tentatively believes that testing with the (22
lb) CRABI-12MO is unnecessary because the dummy is not representative
of 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb) children.\13\ This change would make NHTSA's
compliance tests more reflective of real world CRS use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ If the CRS were also labeled as suitable for use by
children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), then the CRS would be
subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For CRSs for children in the 18.2 kg to 29.5 kg (40 to 65
lb) weight range, NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to specify
testing solely with the state-of-the-art HIII-6YO child ATD. Due in
part to issues relating to the HIII-6YO's performance in tests on the
current (outdated) standard seat assembly, FMVSS No. 213 has provided
manufacturers the option of NHTSA conducting compliance tests using the
HIII-6YO or an older Hybrid II (H2) version of the test dummy (H2-6YO)
(S7.1.2(d), S7.1.3). With the move to the updated seat assembly, the
Agency believes the unrealistic chin-to-chest and head-to-knee contact
problems seen in tests of the HIII-6YO on the current seat assembly
would be eliminated. The HIII-6YO is preferred as it is a more
biofidelic test device than the H2-6YO dummy, and more and more CRS
manufacturers are using the HIII-6YO rather than the H2-6YO dummy.
Further, phasing out of the older H2-6YO is desirable because it is
becoming more difficult to obtain replacement parts for the dummy. For
these reasons, NHTSA is proposing to remove the optional use of the H2-
6YO dummy and, instead, to adopt a provision that NHTSA will only use
the HIII-6YO in compliance tests. NHTSA proposes sufficient lead time
(e.g., 3 years after publication of a final rule) for the change.
Increasing numbers of CRSs are sold for use rear-facing
with older children. To facilitate the Agency's compliance testing of
the restraints, NHTSA proposes a procedure for positioning the 3-year-
old child test dummy's legs when the dummy is rear-facing. The
procedure involves placing the dummy's legs up against the seat back
and removing the dummy's knee joint stops, which allows the legs to
extend at the knee in the sled test and not brace the legs against the
seat back. The proposed procedure is already used by some commercial
test labs and CRS manufacturers to assess the suitability of rear-
facing CRSs for older children.
5. NHTSA proposes amendments to FMVSS No. 213 to accommodate
different types of CRSs that are designed for exclusive use on school
bus seats. These restraints are designed to install on school bus seats
by way of straps wrapped around the school bus seat back or the seat
back and seat pan (seat back mount or seat back and seat pan mounts).
Currently FMVSS No. 213 permits a type of school bus ``harness'' (see
S5.3.1(b) and S5.6.1.11). To permit restraints other than harnesses,
the proposed amendments would include a new design-neutral definition
for this type of CRS. This NPRM proposes specific requirements for the
CRSs, including a warning label and instructions that indicate that the
CRS must only be used on school bus seats.
Estimated Benefits and Costs
The proposal has the potential to provide safety benefits with, at
most, minimal incremental costs.
Updating Sled Assembly and Testing With Type 2 Belts
The proposed updates to the sled test and testing with Type 2 belts
would better align the performance of CRSs in compliance tests to that
in real world crashes. NHTSA believes there would be benefits from
making the FMVSS No. 213 test more representative of real world
crashes, but quantification of the associated benefits/costs is not
possible at this time due to a lack of data to make such an assessment.
There would only be de minimus costs involved in changing the
standard seat assembly used by NHTSA to assess CRS compliance.
Manufacturers are not required to use the standard seat assembly, but
as a practical matter they usually choose to do so, to test their CRSs
as similarly as possible to the tests conducted by NHTSA. The one-time
cost of the updated standard seat assembly sled buck is about $8,000.
Whether a manufacturer chooses to build the assembly itself or uses one
at an independent test facility, cost impacts are minimal when
distributed among the hundreds of thousands of CRSs that would be sold
by each manufacturer.
NHTSA estimates that there would be little or no increased costs to
child restraints to meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements when tested on
the new sled assembly. The Agency's test data of representative CRSs in
the fleet showed that virtually all CRSs met the standard's
requirements when tested on the new sled assembly.
Registration Program
The proposed changes to the registration card would provide
flexibility to manufacturers in how they communicate with consumers and
would likely help improve registration rates and recall completion
rates. However, NHTSA cannot quantify the benefits at this time. The
Agency estimates there would be no costs associated with the proposed
changes. The proposed changes to the registration program would lessen
restrictions and would be optional for manufacturers to implement.
While the changes could affect the collection of information pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (discussed later in this preamble),
there would be no additional material cost associated with the proposed
changes to the registration card. Manufacturers could use the same card
and just change the wording on them.
Labeling
The Agency believes that the proposed updates to the labeling
requirements would benefit safety by reducing the premature graduation
of children from rear-facing CRSs to forward-facing CRSs, and from
forward-facing CRSs to booster seats. The Agency estimates potentially
0.7 to 2.3 lives would be saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate-to-critical
severity injuries would be prevented annually by raising the
manufacturer-recommended minimum child weight for the use of forward-
facing CRSs from 9 kg (20 lb) to 12 kg (26.5 lb). NHTSA also estimates
potentially 1.2 to 4 lives would be saved and 1.6 to 5.2 moderate-to-
critical injuries would be prevented by raising the manufacturer-
recommended minimum child weight for use of booster seats from 13.6 kg
(30 lb) to 18.2 kg (40 lb).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The details of the benefits analysis are provided in the
Appendix to this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69392]]

label. There would also be no decrease in sales of forward-facing car
safety seats or of booster seats as a result of the proposal 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 would only affect how consumers use the
products and not the sale of them. For example, consumers would still
purchase forward-facing car safety seats but would wait to use them
until the child is at least 1. They would still purchase convertible
\15\ CRSs, but will delay turning the child forward-facing until the
child is at least 1. Consumers would still purchase booster seats, but
would use them when the child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb) rather than 13.6
kg (30 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ A convertible CRS is a type of CRS that can be used rear-
facing or forward-facing with an internal harness system to secure a
child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATDs
The proposed updates in how ATDs are used in the sled test for
assessing CRS performance better accords 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.
Manufacturers are not required to test their CRSs the way NHTSA
tests child restraints in a compliance test. Assuming manufacturers
choose to conduct the tests specified in FMVSS No. 213 to make their
certifications of compliance, NHTSA believes there would be no cost
increases associated with the proposals. Some of the proposed changes
lessen testing burdens by reducing the extent of testing with ATDs. For
example, the NPRM proposes that CRSs for children weighing 10 kg to
13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) would no longer be subject to testing with the
HIII-3YO dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction in testing cost of $540,000
for the current number of infant carrier models in the market. Also,
CRS for children weighing 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb) would no longer be
tested with the CRABI-12MO. The proposed positioning procedure for the
legs of the HIII-3YO dummy in rear-facing CRSs is unlikely to have cost
implications because the procedure is similar, if not identical, to
that currently used by manufacturers.
NHTSA believes there would only be minimal costs associated with
NHTSA's testing CRSs solely with the HIII-6YO dummy rather than the H2-
6YO dummy. This is because there would be little or no design changes
needed for the CRSs due to this proposed update since nearly all the
CRSs tested with the HIII-6YO in the proposed standard seat assembly
complied with all the FMVSS No. 213 requirements.\16\ 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 in the proposed standard
seat assembly. In addition, manufacturers increasingly are certifying
at least some of their CRS models for older children using the HIII-6YO
dummy rather than the H2-6YO and so most manufacturers already have
access to the HIII-6YO dummy and would not need to purchase the dummy
as a result of this proposed update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Of 21 tests with the HIII-6YO in the proposed seat
assembly, all passed the performance metrics, except for one that
failed head excursion limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe a lead time of three years is sufficient for redesigning
CRSs that may need modifications to comply with the proposed updates to
ATD selection for the sled test because most CRSs would need minor or
no modifications to meet the proposed requirements. Further, a 3-year
time frame aligns with the typical design cycle for CRSs, so any change
needed to meet the requirements could be accommodated in the
manufacturers' normal refinement or refreshing of their designs. We
note also that manufacturers have the option of not changing CRS
designs in some instances, and may instead change the weight of the
children for whom the CRS is recommended. Narrowing the population of
children for whom the CRS is recommended in many instances would reduce
the number of ATDs NHTSA would use in its compliance tests of the CRS.
School Bus Child Restraint Systems
The proposed changes to include in FMVSS No. 213 a new type of CRS
manufactured for exclusive use on school bus seats would allow the sale
of these products. The agency estimates there would be no cost impacts
associated with the proposed changes because currently available
products covered by the new definition of a school bus CRS already meet
the proposed requirements. The benefits of the proposed changes are
associated with the popularity of such CRSs in the pupil transportation
industry for transporting preschool and special-needs children.
However, NHTSA cannot quantify these benefits at this time.

II. Statutory Authority

This NPRM is issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and MAP-21.

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle Safety
Act'')

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation \17\
is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.\18\ ``Motor vehicle safety'' is defined in the Vehicle
Safety Act as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.'' \19\ ``Motor vehicle safety standard'' means a minimum
performance standard for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.\20\
When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all
relevant, available motor vehicle safety information, and consider
whether a standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the
types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed.\21\ The Secretary must also consider the extent to which
the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic
crashes and associated deaths and injuries.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards is delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95.
\18\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\19\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
\20\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\21\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. MAP-21

MAP-21 incorporates Subtitle E, ``Child Safety Standards.'' Section
31501(b)(1) of Subtitle E requires that not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary \23\ shall commence a
rulemaking proceeding to amend the standard seat assembly
specifications under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213
to simulate a single representative motor vehicle rear seat better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Authority delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95(p)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. NHTSA's Views

NHTSA is issuing this NPRM under Vehicle Safety Act authority and
MAP-21. Section 31501(b)(2) of MAP-21

[[Page 69393]]

directs NHTSA to issue a final rule amending the standard seat assembly
of FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA believes that, in requiring a final rule
amending ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213,'' MAP-21
envisions that the rulemaking on the standard seat assembly will accord
with the requirements and considerations for FMVSSs under the Vehicle
Safety Act.

III. Updating the Representative Seat Assembly

To update FMVSS No. 213's assessment of CRS performance, NHTSA
proposes to amend the standard seat assembly specified by FMVSS No. 213
to better simulate ``a single representative motor vehicle rear seat,''
as directed by Sec. 31501(b) of MAP-21. The updated seat would
comprise a stiffer seat cushion, representative seat geometry, and a 3-
point seat belt (in lieu of the 2-point lap belt on the current seat
assembly). The updated seat assembly would have only one seating
position, unlike the current FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly,
which has two positions.

a. Background on This Proposed Seat Assembly

In 2003, in response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act,\24\ NHTSA updated the
FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly to make it more representative of
rear seats of the vehicle fleet (68 FR 37620, June 24, 2003).\25\ The
2003 final rule changed the seat assembly's seat pan angle, seat back
angle, spacing between the anchors of the lap belts and the rigidity of
the seat back. Due to TREAD Act timeframes, limited agency resources
and competing priorities, the update did not include modifications to
the seat cushion.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, Stat. 1800.
\25\ The 2003 final rule also updated the sled pulse to provide
a wider test corridor.
\26\ A seat cushion consists of foam and a cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aware that the seat cushion of the FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly was
softer than the rear seat cushions of many new vehicles in the fleet,
NHTSA continued to investigate seat cushion stiffness and other
characteristics after the 2003 final rule. In 2012, the agency
initiated a research program (``Vehicle Rear Seat Study'') as part of
an initiative to assess the representativeness of the FMVSS No. 213
frontal impact sled test.\27\ The Vehicle Rear Seat Study surveyed
vehicles in the fleet to compile data on the rear seat environment. The
study measured 43 individual rear seating positions in 24 model year
(MY) 2010 vehicles. Measurements were obtained on features that
included seat back angle and height, seat pan width, softness of the
seat cushion, location of seat belts and locations of child restraint
anchorage systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study,''
Technical Report, July 2012. Report available in the docket for this
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA used data from the Vehicle Rear Seat Study in designing the
seat assembly proposed in the January 28, 2014 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213's
side impact test.\28\ The dynamic sled test was originally developed by
Takata Corporation. The agency used the vehicle survey data to guide
the proposed seat design towards a seat assembly better representing
the U.S. vehicle fleet. NHTSA sought to have the proposed seat assembly
geometry and the belt and child restraint anchorage locations within
one standard deviation of the average values in the current vehicle
fleet. The proposed side impact bench seat assembly also had features
of the seat assembly of Regulation No. 44 (R.44) of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), ``Uniform provisions concerning
the approval of restraining devices for child occupants of power-driven
vehicles (child restraint systems)'' (ECE R.44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 79 FR 4570, supra. As noted earlier, Sec. 31501(a) of MAP-
21 states that the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending FMVSS
No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child
restraint systems during side impact crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The January 28, 2014 side impact NPRM generated many comments on
the proposed side impact seat assembly, notably with regard to the
difficulty some commenters had in procuring the ECE R.44 seat cushion
that had been proposed for inclusion in the seat assembly. Commenters
also requested some changes to the lower anchorage specifications.

b. Consistency with the Proposal for the Side Impact Bench

As noted above, NHTSA's January 28, 2014 NPRM proposing to add a
dynamic side impact test to FMVSS No. 213 included specifications for a
standard seat assembly that would be used in the compliance test. After
reviewing the comments on the side impact proposal and other
information, NHTSA is considering using the seat assembly proposed in
this NPRM for the side impact test instead of the seat assembly that
was proposed in the January 28, 2014 side impact NPRM. NHTSA believes
that using the same specifications of the standard seat assembly
(including seat geometry, seat cushion, and anchorage locations \29\)
for both the side impact test and a frontal impact test makes sense,
since the aim is to have a representative seat assembly and the same
passenger vehicles are involved in side and frontal crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Anchorage locations are aligned to the corresponding seat
assembly's seat orientation reference line (SORL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The standard seat assembly proposed in the January 2014 side impact
NPRM is substantially like the seat proposed in this NPRM, but NHTSA
believes this proposed seat assembly is a better seat assembly
primarily regarding the cushion foam. The former specified use of the
ECE R.44 seat cushion, while this proposed seat assembly incorporates
seat cushion foam that is more representative of the seat cushion
stiffness of the current vehicle fleet. This proposed seat cushion is
also easier to procure than the ECE R.44 foam. Commenters to the
January 2014 side impact NPRM expressed concerns about the difficulty
to source the ECE R44 seat foam, which is only available from one
overseas supplier.\30\ NHTSA tentatively believes that using the foam
specified in this NPRM for the frontal test seat assembly would
alleviate those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See also a memorandum documenting ex parte meeting with the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), available at
Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0055-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There would be a few adjustments that would be made to the standard
seat assembly proposed in the January 2014 side impact NPRM to make it
like the seat assembly proposed today. This NPRM proposes cushion foam
101.6 mm (4 inches) thick while the ECE R.44 seat cushion is 127 mm (5
inches). If the foam specified in this NPRM is used in the side impact
test, the intruding door structure of the side impact standard seat
assembly would need to be lowered about an inch to maintain the
vertical position of the intruding door relative to the standard seat
assembly. Some adjustments would also be made to the seat belt
anchorage locations and the seat back height proposed in the January
2014 NPRM. These and other issues are discussed in detail below in this
preamble. The positioning of the child restraint anchorage system would
be slightly moved so that the lower bars would be located where they
are on the frontal test seat assembly proposed today.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ NHTSA notes that the lower anchorage bars may not be
configured like they are on the frontal test seat assembly proposed
today. The lower anchorage design on the frontal test seat assembly
consists of two side structures with a replaceable lower anchorage
bar, a design that eases the bar's replacement. NHTSA may not
incorporate this particular anchorage design into the side impact
seat assembly, as some commenters to the January 2014 side impact
NPRM noted that the side structure of the lower anchorages can
interfere with the lower anchorage attachments of the tested CRS.
Instead, NHTSA is considering reconfiguring the design of the lower
anchorages of the side impact seat assembly so that undue
interference would be avoided.

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

[[Page 69394]]

Comments are requested on this issue of consistency between the
seat assembly used in the side impact test and the seat assembly
proposed in this NPRM for FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact test.

c. Seat Geometry

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study measured the vehicles' seat geometry
and anchorage locations using a Seat Geometry Measuring Fixture (SGMF).
The SGMF consisted of two wood blocks (600 mm x 88 mm x 38 mm) and a 76
mm (3 inches) hinge (see Figure 1 below). To make the rear seat
geometry measurements, the SGMF was positioned on the centerline of
each rear seat position. Point A (see Figure 1), which corresponds to
the hinge location of the SGMF, was the reference point for all
measurements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.004

1. Seat Back Angle
The Vehicle Rear Seat Study found that the average seat back angle
of the surveyed vehicles was 20 degrees from vertical, with a standard
deviation of 4 degrees.\32\ The seat back angle ranged from a minimum
of 9 degrees to a maximum of 28 degrees from vertical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ The current seat back angle of the FMVSS No. 213 seat
assembly is 20 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency is proposing a seat back angle of 20 degrees on the
updated test seat assembly. The value is representative of the seat
back angles found in the vehicle fleet (within one standard deviation
of the average values in the current fleet). Also, the proposed seat
back angle would simplify the change to a new seat assembly in that it
would be the same as the angle of the current FMVSS No. 213 test seat
assembly and that of the originally-proposed standard seat for the side
impact test.
2. Seat Pan Angle
For the seat pan angle, the Vehicle Rear Seat Study found that the
average angle was 13 degrees from the horizontal, with a standard
deviation of 4 degrees.\33\ The seat pan angle ranged from a minimum of
7 degrees to a maximum of 23 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ The current seat pan angle of the FMVSS No. 213 seat
assembly is 15 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency is proposing to maintain a seat pan angle of 15 degrees
on the updated test seat assembly. The measurement is representative of
the seat pan angles found in the vehicle fleet (within one standard
deviation of the average values in the current fleet). Also, the
proposed seat pan angle would simplify the change to a new seat
assembly in that it would be the same as the angle of the current FMVSS
No. 213 test seat assembly and that of the originally-proposed standard
seat assembly for the side impact test.
The Agency notes that the seat pans of some vehicle rear seats are
equipped with anti-submarining devices or are contoured in a manner to
prevent submarining. The Agency did not replicate these features in the
standard seat assembly for simplicity's sake. NHTSA tentatively
concludes that a seat pan angle of 15 degrees is representative of the
seat pan angle of rear seats in the vehicle fleet and would be
sufficient for evaluating the performance of CRSs attached to the seat.
At the end of the seat geometry section, Table 3, infra, shows a
comparison of the seat back and seat pan angles found in the vehicle
fleet, and the proposed and current angles of the test seat assembly.
3. Seat Pan Length
The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed that the average seat pan length
of the surveyed vehicles was 406 mm (16 inches) with a standard
deviation of 38 mm (1.5 inches).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ The current FMVSS No. 213 test seat assembly has a seat pan
length of 16.3 inch (416 mm).

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

[[Page 69395]]

The Agency is proposing a seat pan length of 412 mm (16.2 inches),
which is within one standard deviation of the average seat pan length
in the current vehicle fleet.
4. Seat Back Height
The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed that the average height of the
seat back was 688 mm (27 inches) with a standard deviation of 76 mm (3
inches) when the head restraint was included and 578 mm (22.7 inches)
with a standard deviation of 60 mm (2.3 inches) when the head restraint
was not included in the measurement.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ The current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly has a seat back
height of 20.35 inch (517 mm) and it does not have a head restraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency is proposing a seat back height of 573 mm (22.5 inches)
for the new standard seat assembly, which is within one standard
deviation of the average seat back height when the head restraint is
not included.
5. Rear Seat Cushions
i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion
The Agency compared the stiffness of rear seat cushions (consisting
of foam and a cover) in the fleet to that of the seat cushions used in
various test programs, including FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA first measured
the quasi-static stiffness (force-deflection) of the seat cushions in
rear seats of 13 MY 2003-2008 passenger vehicles.\36\ The 13 passenger
vehicles were representative of the current vehicle fleet, and comprise
a mix of different vehicle types (passenger cars, SUVs, and minivans)
produced by different vehicle manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Wietholter, K., Louden, A., and Sullivan, L. ``Evaluation
of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 Test Bench,'' June 2016
available in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A quasi-static load was applied at a rate of 0.374 mm/s using a 203
millimeters (mm) (8 inch) diameter disk shaped indentor. NHTSA compared
the force-deflection values to those of the standard seat assembly
specified in the New Programme for the Assessment of Child Restraint
Systems (NPACS),\37\ ECE R.44, and FMVSS No. 213. The force-deflection
curves of the different seat cushions are presented in Figure 2 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ The NPACS consortium was funded in 2005 by governments of
the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, the Generalitat of
Catalonia, and five non-governmental organizations. The objectives
of NPACS is to provide scientifically based EU wide harmonized test
and rating protocols to offer consumers clear and understandable
information about dynamic performance and usability of child
restraint systems. NPACS is similar to NHTSA's New Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) and the NCAP program administered in Europe
(EuroNCAP), in that it is a voluntary consumer information program,
rather than a binding regulation. The difference is that NPACS is
designed to test CRSs, while NCAP focuses on vehicle performance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.005

The data showed that the current FMVSS No. 213 initial seat cushion
stiffness (force for the first 25 mm of deflection) is less than that
of the seat cushions in the 13 MY 2003-2008 vehicles. Conversely, the
initial stiffness of the NPACS and the ECE R.44 seat cushions are
greater than most of the measured vehicle seat cushions.
Since CRSs are tested on the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly
in a dynamic sled test, NHTSA also evaluated the dynamic stiffness of
the various seat cushions. NHTSA compared the dynamic force-deflection
(dynamic stiffness) of: The seat cushion in rear seats of 14 MY 2006-
2011 vehicles, the seat foams specified in ECE R.44 and NPACS, and the
seat cushion of the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly.\38\ The
dynamic stiffness of the seat cushions and seat foams were determined
using a pendulum impact device (PID), which consisted of an arm with a
152.4 mm (6 inch) diameter impactor (weighing 7.8 kg (17.2 lb)). The
impactor was dropped at an average

[[Page 69396]]

impact velocity of 3.4 meters per second (m/s) (7.6 mph) on the seat
cushion.\39\ The PID was instrumented with a tri-axial accelerometer
and an angular rate sensor to calculate the displacement and a uniaxial
load cell to measure the force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ The ECE and NPACS foams were tested with the foams placed
on a flat adjustable table, while the FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion was
tested with the cushion placed on the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat
assembly. The measured dynamic stiffness characteristics of the foam
and cushion are not expected to differ significantly whether placed
on a flat adjustable table or on a seat assembly.
\39\ See ``Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 Test
Bench,'' June 2016, supra. A 3.4 m/s (7.6 mph) test speed was used.
This speed resulted in the impact device compressing the foam
similar to how the foam was compressed in FMVSS No. 213 sled tests
with various test dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 3 below shows that the ECE R.44 and NPACS foams were found
to be stiffer than the vehicle fleet. The FMVSS No. 213 foam, tested on
the standard seat assembly with a cover, is on the low end of the
vehicle fleet rear seat stiffness.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.006

Since the ECE R.44 and NPACS seat foam stiffness were found not to
be representative of the current U.S. vehicle fleet (both quasi-static
and dynamic stiffness), the agency developed a new seat cushion that
would be representative. The foam used in the seat cushion was
manufactured by The Woodbridge Group (Woodbridge),\40\ and is referred
to as the ``NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion'' in this NPRM. The NHTSA-
Woodbridge seat cushion consists of the foam material covered by the
cover used in test procedures of ECE R.44. The ECE R.44 cover material
is a sun shade cloth made of poly-acrylate fiber with a specific mass
of 290 (g/m\2\) and a lengthwise and breadthwise breaking strength of
120 kg (264.5 lb) and 80 kg (176.3 lb), respectively.\41\ The dynamic
force-deflection of the NHTSA-Woodbridge standard seat cushion is shown
below in Figure 4. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the stiffness of
the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion is satisfactorily representative of
the average seat cushion stiffness found in the vehicle fleet (grey
lines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ The Woodbridge Group is a supplier of automotive seat foam,
http://www.woodbridgegroup.com.
\41\ The properties of this new seat cushion would be fully
specified in a drawing package accompanying this document to enable
interested parties to manufacture this seat cushion.

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

[[Page 69397]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.007

To simplify procurement of the desired seat cushion foam, Table 1
below sets forth characteristics of the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion
foam as determined by the test methods specified in ASTM D-3574-03,
``Standard test methods for flexible cellular materials--slab, bonded,
and molded urethane foam.'' ``IFD'' refers to the indentation force-
deflection (IFD) test, which measures the force required for 25
percent, 50 percent, and 65 percent deflection of the entire product
sample.\42\ The compression force-deflection (CFD) test measures the
force required to compress a sample of the foam (50 mm (1.96 inch) by
50 mm and 25 mm (0.98 inch) thickness) by 50 percent. Further details
of seat cushion characteristics are available in the drawings that are
in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Foam products are typically characterized by their IFD and
density values rather than by their dynamic performance.

Table 1--Stiffness of the NHTSA-Woodbridge Seat Cushion Foam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam characteristics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density................................ 47 kg/m\3\ (2.9 lb/ft\3\).
IFD (25% deflection)................... 237 Newton (N) (53.2 lb).
IFD (50% deflection)................... 440 Newton (N) (99 lb).
IFD (65% deflection)................... 724 Newton (N) (162.7 lb).
CFD (50% compression).................. 6.6 kPa (137.8 lb/ft\2\).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat Cushion
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the bottom seat cushion foam
should be 101.6 mm (4-inches) thick. A 101.6 mm (4-inch) thickness
would be representative of the seat cushions on real world vehicles.
The Vehicle Rear Seat Study found an average seat pan cushion thickness
for both outboard and center seating positions of 90 mm (3.5 inches)
with a standard deviation of 40 mm (1.5 inches), measured at the
centerline of the seating position.\43\ A 101.6 mm (4 inch) seat
cushion foam thickness for the seat pan also has the advantage of
simplifying procurement of the foam since foam standard specifications,
such as IFD, are provided by the manufacturer in 101.6 mm (4 inches)
samples, as specified in test method B1 of ASTM D3574. Thus, specifying
a 101.6 mm (4 inch) foam thickness would streamline compliance testing
because foam of that size would be relatively simple to procure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly seat pan cushion
has a thickness of 152.4 mm (6 inch).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. The Foam Is Suitable for Use in the Standard's Dynamic Test
The NHTSA-Woodbridge foam not only would be representative of foam
in real world vehicles, it also appears suitable for use in the FMVSS
No. 213 compliance test. One concern about any foam used on the
standard seat assembly is whether the foam would ``bottom out'' (fully
compress) on to the rigid backing during the demanding conditions of
the sled test. The current soft FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion has a
tendency to bottom out in tests of

[[Page 69398]]

forward-facing CRSs using the heavier test dummies specified in FMVSS
No. 213 (Hybrid III 6-year-old (HIII-6YO) and Hybrid III 10-year-old
(HIII-10YO) child dummies).
The Agency conducted FMVSS No. 213-type sled tests to evaluate
whether the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion would bottom out when tested
in a severe impact test (35 g at 56.3 kilometers per hour (km/h) or 35
mph) using heavy dummies restrained in a heavy CRS. NHTSA used two
samples of NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushions (101.6 mm (4 inches)) and the
Graco Smart Seat in the test series. These pulse and test speeds were
more severe than the test conditions specified in FMVSS No. 213.
NHTSA selected the Graco Smart Seat for this testing because the
CRS represents a heavy CRS relative to current CRSs in the market,
weighing 9.5 kg (21 lb) without its base and 14.9 kg (33 lb) with its
base (the base is used in rear-facing and forward-facing modes). The
CRS was tested in rear-facing and forward-facing modes (with the base)
using a HIII-3YO dummy and HIII-6YO dummy, and tested in the belt-
positioning booster seat mode (without the base) using a HIII-6YO and
HIII-10YO.
In our tests, NHTSA considered the seat cushion to have bottomed
out along the front edge if the seat cushion displacement exceeded 96.5
mm (3.8 inches). Seat cushion displacement at the front edge of the
seat was measured by video analysis.\44\ Cushion displacement was not
measured in the tests with rear-facing CRSs as the high rotation of the
CRS did not allow for an accurate measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ ``Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213 Test
Bench,'' June 2016, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test results are shown in Table 2 below. The NHTSA-Woodbridge seat
cushion did not bottom out in any of the tests, even when subjected to
the severe test conditions and when using a heavy test dummy and a
heavy CRS.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.008

iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam
For the seat back cushion, NHTSA proposes to use the NHTSA-
Woodbridge seat cushion foam with a 50.8 mm (2 inch) thickness. A 50.8
mm (2 inch) thickness would be representative of seat back cushions in
the fleet. The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed that the overall seat
back cushion thickness for outboard and center seating positions was 76
mm (3 inches) with a standard deviation of 29 mm (1.14 inches),
measured at the centerline of the seating position. The proposed seat
back cushion thickness of 50.8 mm (2 inches) is within 1 standard
deviation of the average seat back cushion thickness in the vehicle
fleet.
Further, while NHTSA does not believe that the seat back cushion
significantly affects a CRS's dynamic performance in the frontal sled
test, the Agency recognizes that a seat back cushion on the thicker
side could be a potential source of variability when testing CRSs with
top tethers. When the tether is tightened, the back cushion can be
compressed to varying degrees. Data do not indicate that differences in
compression necessarily affect CRS

[[Page 69399]]

performance, but a 50.8 mm (2 inch) thick foam would reduce such
differences and thus facilitate a more repeatable installation.
The Agency notes also that specifying that the foam thickness is
50.8 mm (2 inches) would streamline the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test.
Foam manufacturers readily produce foams in 101.6 mm (4 inch) sections.
A 101.6 mm (4 inch) thick foam slab can be easily cut into two 50.8 mm
(2 inch) pieces to be used for the seat back.
6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features
Table 3 below shows a comparison of features of seating assemblies
found in the vehicle fleet, and the proposed and current features of
the FMVSS No. 213 test seat assembly.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.009

d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations

FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs (other than belt-positioning booster
seats) to meet the standard's performance requirements while attached
with a 2-point belt (lap belt).\45\ In some tests, a top tether may be
used to supplement the belt attachment. The current seat assembly has a
2-point belt for testing CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Belt-positioning booster seats are currently tested with a
3-point belt system, as these child restraint systems are designed
for use with 3-point belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make FMVSS No. 213's standard seat assembly more representative
of the vehicle fleet, the NPRM proposes replacing the 2-point belt with
a 3-point belt. (This NPRM also proposes requiring CRSs to be tested
under FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the standard seat assembly using
the 3-point belt.) Three-point belts were first required in outboard
rear seats of passenger vehicles starting in MY 1990 and in trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles (including passenger vans and SUVs)
starting in MY 1992. Three-point belts in center rear seats were
phased-in between September 1, 2005 and September 1, 2007. The on-the-
road passenger vehicle fleet is now predominantly comprised of vehicles
with 3-point belts in all rear seating positions, and more and more
vehicles will be so equipped in the near future. Therefore, to test
CRSs with what will be the most common seat belt configuration in the
vehicle fleet, the agency proposes to incorporate a 3-point belt in the
proposed standard seat assembly.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Incorporating a 3-point belt on the standard seat assembly
would harmonize FMVSS No. 213 with the counterpart Canadian
regulation (Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 213,
``Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seat Safety
Regulations''). While the 3-point belt anchorage locations in the
Canadian standard seat assembly are different than those in this
proposal, Transport Canada is considering harmonizing its standard
with NHTSA's proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA began its assessment of where the seat belt anchorages should
be located on the updated FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly by
considering anchor location requirements in FMVSS No. 210, ``Seat belt
assembly anchorages.'' \47\ Figure 5 shows the side view of the
proposed bench, the proposed location of the lap belt anchors and the
FMVSS No. 210 corridor. This figure shows that the lap belt anchor
locations on the proposed bench are within the FMVSS No. 210 corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ FMVSS No. 210 specifies a location corridor for the lap
belt anchorages which is between 30 and 75 degrees from the
horizontal at the H-point.

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

[[Page 69400]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.010

NHTSA also considered the data on real-world anchorage locations
from the Vehicle Rear Seat Study. Table 4 below shows the average
position along with the standard deviation of the lap and shoulder belt
anchorages measured in the 24 vehicles surveyed. Measurements were made
with respect to Point A of the SGMF. The table also shows similar
measurements of the seat belt anchorage locations on the current FMVSS
No. 213 standard seat assembly, the proposed seat assembly, along with
those in ECE R.44 and NPACS.

[[Page 69401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.011

NHTSA also located the anchorages to avoid interference with the
seat assembly structure in an FMVSS No. 213 compliance test.
Interaction of the seat belt with the vehicle seat assembly, or the
child restraint with a seat belt anchorage, could introduce variability
in the test results. The shoulder belt anchor is located more rearward
and higher than the average location from the vehicle survey to avoid
interaction of the shoulder belt with the seat back cushion, and
interaction of large high back boosters with the shoulder belt
anchorage hardware. The lap belt anchors are located to be more
rearward and lower than the average location from the vehicle survey,
to avoid interaction of the seat belt and seat belt hardware with the
seat cushion.
Even with these adjustments, as shown in Table 4, supra, the fore/
aft, lateral, and vertical positions of the lap and shoulder belt
anchorages relative to point A for the proposed seat assembly are
within one standard deviation of the average values found in the
vehicle survey.

e. Child Restraint Anchorage System Locations

FMVSS No. 213 also requires CRSs to meet the standard's performance
requirements while attached by way of a child restraint anchorage
system (S5.3.2).\48\ In some tests, a top tether may be used to
supplement the lower anchorage attachment (S6.1.2(a)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Some CRSs, such as belt-positioning seats and harnesses,
are excluded from this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The standard seat assembly of FMVSS No. 213 has a child restraint
anchorage system consisting of two lower anchor bars and a top tether
anchor. The child restraint anchorage system is configured as specified
by FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' for systems
installed on vehicles. FMVSS No. 225 requires lower anchors to be 280
mm (11 inches) apart and have specific anchor geometry.
In the Vehicle Rear Seat Study NHTSA measured the location of the
lower anchor and the tether anchor in the vehicles. Table 5 below shows
the location of the lower anchors and the tether anchor from Point A of
the SGMF in the 24-vehicle survey, and that of the proposed FMVSS No.
213 seat assembly. The lower anchors of the proposed standard seat
assembly have a 280 mm (11 inch) lateral spacing as specified in FMVSS
No. 225. Each lower anchor metal bar is 37 mm (1.45 inches) long.
The location of the lower anchorages selected for the proposed seat
assembly is slightly lower than the average location in the vehicle
survey.\49\ NHTSA located the anchorages slightly lower because
anchorages positioned higher may cause some CRS attachments to
interfere with the seat back cushion. Also, the Agency was concerned
that CRSs designed with rigid attachments (that attach to the lower
anchor bars without use of webbing) may adopt an incorrect installation
angle when the bars are higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ The vertical location of the lower anchors in the proposed
seat assembly is just 2 mm lower than one standard deviation below
the average vertical location of lower anchors in the vehicle fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also chose an anchorage location more forward (closer to the
seat bight) than the average from the Vehicle Rear Seat Study. The more
forward location was selected to make it easier to install the CRS on
the seat assembly in a compliance test, and to measure the tension in
the belt webbing used for the lower anchorage attachment. Further,
NHTSA anticipates that lower anchorages will likely be more forward
than in current vehicles if future vehicles employ the design concepts
discussed in NHTSA's 2015 MAP-21 NPRM, supra, to improve the ease-of-
use of child restraint anchorage systems.\50\ Thus, while the proposed

[[Page 69402]]

lower anchorage location in the aft direction is not within one
standard deviation of the average in the current vehicle fleet, NHTSA
believes that the fleet will be changing. The proposed aft location of
lower anchors for the upgraded standard seat would be representative of
the average future vehicle fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ NPRM to improve the ease-of-use of child restraint
anchorage systems. 80 FR 3744, January 23, 2015. Docket No. NHTSA-
2014-0123. The NPRM proposes to require vehicle manufacturers to
place the anchorages within 2 centimeters from the seat bight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also used the Vehicle Rear Seat Study to position the tether
anchorage on the new standard seat assembly. While FMVSS No. 225
permits the tether anchorage to be in a wide area in the vehicle, the
study found that the tether anchorages are mostly centered along the
designated seating position (DSP) centerline. Also, the anchorages are
found in two main areas: The seat back at different heights (mainly in
SUVs, hatchbacks, vans, and trucks) and the package shelf (mainly in
sedans and coupe type vehicles). In a few vehicles, the tether
anchorage is on the rear wall (pickup trucks) or the roof. Based on
sales volumes, the number of vehicles with tether anchorages in the
package shelf is about the same as those with tether anchorages in the
seat back.
The Agency proposes to locate the tether anchorage in the seat back
area. NHTSA believes that locating the anchorage on the seat back,
rather than in a position representing the package shelf, results in a
slightly more demanding test as anchoring a CRS to the former causes
more tether strap webbing to be used than if the anchor were directly
aft of and closer to the CRS. More webbing used in the test may
slightly increase the likelihood that higher head excursions could
result, as webbing has a natural tendency to elongate in the sled test.
The location of the tether anchorage in the proposed standard seat
assembly is within one standard deviation of the average found by the
Vehicle Rear Seat Study as shown in Table 5.

Table 5--Lower Anchors and Tether Anchor Location From the 24-Vehicle Survey and Those in the Proposed FMVSS No.
213 Standard Seat Assembly
[All measurements are in millimeters from point A of the SGMF]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average from Proposed FMVSS
vehicle survey No. 213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Anchors............................... Aft........................... 100 58
21
Lateral....................... 137 140
29
Vertical (-) Below point A.... -12 -38
24
Tether Anchors (Seat Back Position)......... Aft........................... 280 330
88
Lateral....................... 0 0
44
Vertical (-) Below point A.... 140 133
281
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Installing CRSs With a Type 2 Belt Rather Than a Type 1 Belt

To drive continued effective CRS performance in today's vehicles,
NHTSA proposes to require all CRSs to meet the performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the seat assembly with a Type 2
(lap/shoulder) belt. Currently, CRSs are sled tested while attached
with a Type 1 (lap) belt.\51\ With the prevalence of Type 2 belts in
the rear seats of vehicles sold and on the road today, testing CRSs
with the type of seat belt caregivers would be using better ensures the
representativeness of the compliance test. Test data do not indicate
any significant difference in performance in current child restraint
designs when installed using a Type 1 versus a Type 2 belt.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ NHTSA is not changing FMVSS No. 213's requirement that
covered CRSs must also meet the standard's performance requirements
while attached using a child restraint anchorage system.
\52\ See results of test numbers 8917, 8922, 8919, 8923, 8929
and 8931 in Table 11 and test numbers 8917, 8922, 8919 and 8923 in
Table 12 of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adopting a requirement that CRSs meet the standard when tested with
a Type 2 belt would be consistent with Canada's CMVSS No. 213, supra.
Since 2010, Transport Canada tests CRSs equipped with internal
harnesses by installing them with a Type 2 belt.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ P.C. 2010-545 April 29, 2010. 2010-05-12 Canada Gazette
Part II, Vol. 144, No. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor

On January 28, 2011, Volvo petitioned NHTSA requesting that the
Agency amend FMVSS No. 213 by: (1) Updating the seat cushion of the
sled standard seat assembly; (2) allowing a lap/shoulder belt fastening
in the test procedure; and (3) adding a floor to the sled fixture used
in the compliance test procedure. Volvo suggests that these amendments
would make FMVSS No. 213 more reflective of real-world conditions and
facilitate ``rearward-facing child seating for as long as
practicable.'' Volvo states that it offers add-on and built-in booster
seats in the U.S., but does not offer child restraints for children
under the age of 4 ``primarily because of the inherent problems in
[FMVSS] No. 213 and in showing compliance with this standard for larger
rearward-facing child restraints.''
The requests of items (1) and (2) above are being met by this
rulemaking. The request for adding a floor (item (3)) is denied. NHTSA
discusses this request below.
Volvo believes that the most effective way to fasten a rear-facing
child restraint is to use the seat belts or the ISOFIX \54\ anchors
together with a support leg extending down to the floor of the vehicle.
Volvo states that this method of attachment has been available to Volvo
and child restraint manufacturers in countries outside the U.S. for
many years and has ``proven to be very practicable.'' Volvo states:
``For the US, it is not, however, possible to certify this solution to
FMVSS 213 since this standard does not offer a floor for the sled
specified in the test procedure.'' Volvo states that ``the addition of
the floor in the sled used in standard FMVSS 213 appears to be well
justified since all cars in the modern car fleet would have a floor
between the first and second rows of seats.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ ISOFIX is a system for connecting child restraint systems
to vehicles which consists of two rigid anchorages in the vehicle,
two corresponding rigid attachments on the child restraint system
and a means to limit the pitch rotation of the child restraint
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is denying the request. The test parameters of the FMVSS No.
213 sled test replicate the real-world vehicle features and crash
factors that bear on a child restraint's performance in protecting a
child in the real world. Included in those test parameters are the test
seat assembly (seat geometry, seat

[[Page 69403]]

cushion characteristics), methods of child restraint attachment to the
test seat assembly (lap belt, lap/shoulder belt, and child restraint
anchorage system), the standard's limits on head excursion, the sled
crash pulse, and the test velocity. The test parameters are also chosen
and designed to reflect how child restraints are actually used in the
real world. Thus, as examples, the standard requires a universal and
standardized means of attaching CRSs to reflect that CRS are used
interchangeably in all models of vehicles. The standard's test
parameters include a test in which the CRS is installed without
attaching a tether, because non-use of a top tether is prevalent.
Studies from NHTSA's National Child Restraint Use Special Study
(NCRUSS),\55\ Safe Kids,\56\ and the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) \57\ have shown that tether use is still low in the
field. NCRUSS found that the overall tether use was 42 percent. Safe
Kids found that overall tether usage in forward-facing CRSs with
internal harnesses was only 29 percent. Tether use was 45 percent when
the CRS was attached with lower anchorages and 15 percent when the CRS
was attached with seat belts. IIHS researchers analyzed data from 479
vehicle observations and found that the top tether was used only 56
percent of the time. With prevalent tether nonuse in the field, NHTSA
requires forward-facing CRSs to meet minimum performance requirements
while untethered in an FMVSS No. 213 compliance test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811 679,
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142.
NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally-representative survey that
involves both an inspection of the child passenger's restraint
system by a certified child passenger safety technician and a
detailed interview of the driver. The survey collected information
on drivers and on child passengers ages 0-8 years between June and
August 2011.
\56\ ``A Look Inside American Family Vehicles 2009-2010,'' Safe
Kids USA, September 2011. (http://www.safekids.org/assets/docs/safety-basics/safety-tips-by-risk-area/sk-car-seat-report-2011.pdf.)
The study was based on 79,000 observations from ``car seat check''
events and appointments that took place between October 1, 2009 and
September 30, 2010.
\57\ Eichelberger, A. H., Decina, L.E., Jermakian, J. S.,
McCartt, A. T., ``Use of top tether with forward facing child
restraints: Observations and driver interviews,'' IIHS, April 2013.
IIHS surveyed and collected data at roughly 50 suburban sites near
Fredericksburg, VA, Philadelphia, PA, Seattle, WA, and Washington,
DC Shopping centers, recreation facilities, child-care centers, car
seat checkpoints and healthcare facilities were among the locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A generic floor would serve no purpose in the FMVSS No. 213
compliance test. FMVSS No. 213 standardizes the method of attachment to
the vehicle seat and requires CRSs to meet the FMVSS No. 213's dynamic
performance requirements when attached to the test seat assembly using
the standardized attachments (seat belt assembly; child restraint
anchorage system). Standardization increases the likelihood of correct
installation of child restraints, as consumers do not need to learn
novel ways of installing child restraints each time a new child
restraint is used. Standardization also ensures that the minimum level
of protection provided by FMVSS No. 213 will be provided by each child
restraint installed in every vehicle. The standardized attachment does
not involve the vehicle floor. The presence of a floor structure on the
FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly is not a matter of significance for the
standard's compliance test as CRSs are tested today.
In asking for a floor, Volvo impliedly asks that CRSs should be
permitted to use a ``support leg'' in the test to meet the minimum
performance requirements of the standard. The Agency denies this
request for several reasons. FMVSS No. 213 is written to prevent
vehicle-specific CRSs, since the risk of misuse in a vehicle for which
a CRS is not designed is high in this country. This is a concern when
the leg is needed to meet the minimum performance requirements of the
standard.\58\ Consumers might use the CRS in vehicles that may not be
compatible with the use of a leg; using the CRS in a vehicle whose
floor differs from the Volvo floor could have negative safety
consequences when the floor attachment is needed to meet the minimum
performance requirements of the standard. Or, consumers may not
properly use a support leg. They might forget to use it, or might not
attach it correctly to the vehicle floor. Data from NHTSA's NCRUSS and
IIHS, discussed above, show that there already exists a problem of
consumers not using the CRS top tether. Volvo did not provide any
information showing that consumers in this country would use the leg
correctly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ FMVSS No. 213 does not prohibit Volvo or any other
manufacturer from providing a support leg as long as the child
restraint meets the standard's minimum performance levels without
the support leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also notes that Volvo did not suggest how the floor should be
specified on the standard seat assembly. Under the FMVSSs, the strength
and configuration of the vehicle's belt system and child restraint
anchorage system are standardized to ensure the vehicle attachments are
sufficient to withstand the occupied CRS's dynamic loads during a
crash. The attachment strategies specified in the FMVSSs do not involve
compressive loading to the vehicle floor, such as resulting from a
support leg of a CRS. The FMVSSs also have no performance requirements
for the vehicle floor to ensure stable installation of a support leg
and sufficient rigor to withstand loading from a leg during a crash.
NHTSA is concerned that the floor of some vehicles, such as those with
a storage compartment under the seat, may not be strong enough to
withstand the dynamic loads from a support leg. The petitioner's
request to allow the floor to contribute to the performance of the CRS
introduces unacceptable uncertainty that the CRS would provide the
requisite minimum protection in the real world.
By stating that only the standardized means of attachment will be
used in the compliance test, FMVSS No. 213 ensures that the performance
of the child restraint in providing the minimum level of safety
mandated by the standard is not dependent on a supplementary device
that is suitable for only certain vehicle makes and models and that may
or may not be used by the consumer. Since a support leg is not used in
the standard's compliance test, a floor on the seat assembly is
unnecessary. Accordingly, NHTSA denies the request to add a floor to
the sled used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test.

VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash Pulse

a. Introduction

As part of NHTSA's effort to ensure FMVSS No. 213 continues to
drive effective CRS performance in today's vehicle environment, the
Agency examined the sufficiency of the FMVSS No. 213 sled acceleration
pulse and 48 km/h (30 mph) test velocity used in compliance testing.
NHTSA has evaluated this aspect of the test procedure in each of the
Agency's recurring retrospective reviews of the standard.
In 2003, NHTSA considered increasing the severity of FMVSS No.
213's sled acceleration pulse but decided against such a change.
Instead, the Agency redesigned the pulse and established a corridor
around it to allow the Agency to conduct compliance tests at velocities
closer to the 48 km/h (30 mph) velocity specified in the standard.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ Under FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(b)(1)), the dynamic test is at
a velocity change of 48 km/h (30 mph) ``with the acceleration of the
test platform entirely within the curve shown in . . . Figure 2A.''

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

[[Page 69404]]

In that 2003 rulemaking proceeding, NHTSA requested comment on the
corridor for the acceleration pulse and on the severity of the crash
pulse. Commenters from all segments of the child passenger safety
community were almost unanimous opposing an increase in the severity of
the crash pulse. Commenters were concerned that an increase in the
severity of the pulse would lead to higher costs and reduced usability
of child restraints with minimal or no increase in benefits.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ To illustrate, SafetyBeltSafe commented that a velocity
increase would make products more expensive and would not
significantly improve CRS performance in the real world. The
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)
stated that its review of NASS data files indicated that a 48 km/h
(30 mph) change in velocity was more severe than at least 98 percent
of frontal impact crashes involving children nationwide. UMTRI was
concerned that increasing the velocity of the test is not likely to
increase safety, but will increase consumer cost of CRSs and may
lead to CRS designs that could make the restraints less effective or
more easily misused at lower severity crashes, which occur much more
frequently. IIHS stated that its review of NASS cases showed that
CRSs designed to pass the current 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test are
providing very good protection to children in frontal crashes and
that there was no evidence that designing CRSs to withstand higher
crash forces could have prevented or mitigated any of the serious or
fatal injuries in the reviewed NASS cases. The only commenter
supporting an increase in the FMVSS No. 213 pulse was ARCCA Inc.,
which believed that the standard's pulse led to test velocities that
were less severe than 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier vehicle crash
test acceleration pulses. (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11707.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reviewing the comments and other factors, NHTSA decided not
to increase the severity of the sled acceleration pulse. The Agency
determined that increasing the severity could necessitate the redesign
of many CRSs and increase costs of CRSs without a commensurate safety
benefit. In that rulemaking, the Agency determined that the FMVSS No.
213 sled acceleration pulse was severe, similar to rigid barrier crash
test accelerations of SUVs and trucks. Its severity was appropriately
high to ensure that CRSs would maintain their structural integrity in
just about all crashes involving children, and limit forces to the
child's head, neck, and torso to reasonable levels, no matter what
vehicle the child is in.
In preparing this NPRM, NHTSA again investigated the sufficiency of
the FMVSS No. 213 sled acceleration pulse, particularly vis-[agrave]-
vis an evolving occupant protection environment. Since the 2003 final
rule, the stringency of the belted test of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant
crash protection,'' was increased from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56 km/h (35
mph),\61\ which raised the question whether FMVSS No. 213's frontal
test speed should be increased as well. In addition, more vehicles have
become stiffer and/or smaller with high G crash acceleration pulses,
and new kinds of CRSs have emerged for older and heavier children. With
those developments in mind, NHTSA reevaluated the FMVSS No. 213 sled
acceleration pulse and test velocity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ FMVSS No. 208 sets forth vehicle frontal crash tests for
evaluating occupant protection for adult passengers. Examples of
vehicle countermeasures used to meet the requirements include lap/
shoulder seat belts, belt tensioning devices, frontal head and
thorax air bag systems, improved passenger compartment integrity and
vehicle front-end crumple zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guiding Principles
As stated earlier in this preamble, real world data show CRSs to be
highly effective in reducing fatalities and injuries in motor vehicle
crashes. NHTSA estimates that for children less than 1 year old, a CRS
can reduce the risk of fatality by 71 percent when used in a passenger
car and by 58 percent when used in a pickup truck, van, or SUV (light
truck). Child restraint effectiveness for children between the ages 1
to 4 is 54 percent in passenger cars and 59 percent in light
trucks.\62\ These effectiveness estimates would be further enhanced if
the misuse rate of CRSs is reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Traffic Safety Facts--Children 2013 Data. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812154. Last
accessed on August 23, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that CRSs are already highly effective, the Agency carefully
considers the unintended impacts of any rulemaking purporting to
enhance CRS safety. Any enhancement that would markedly raise the price
of the restraints could potentially have an adverse effect on their
sales. The net effect on safety could be negative if the effect of
sales losses exceeds the benefit of the improved performance of the
restraints that are purchased. In addition, NHTSA also considers the
effects of improved performance on the ease of using child restraints.
If the use of CRSs becomes overly complex or unwieldy, the dual
problems of misuse and nonuse of CRSs could be exacerbated. Thus, in
considering the safety impacts of its efforts on FMVSS No. 213, the
agency weighs those improvements against impacts on the price of
restraints and CRS ease-of-use.
With these guiding principles in mind, the agency evaluated the
sufficiency of the current FMVSS No. 213 sled acceleration pulse and
test velocity. NHTSA analyzed real world crash data, the regulations of
other countries, and sled test data from tests the Agency conducted on
the performance of CRSs when tested to different crash test speeds and
sled acceleration pulses.

b. Safety Need--Crash Data Analysis

To learn more about the crash speeds of frontal crashes in which
children are involved and to compare these to crashes involving older
occupants, NHTSA analyzed the NASS-CDS data files for years 2008 to
2012 to determine the change in velocity distribution of non-rollover
frontal crashes. During this 5-year period, there were 754 restrained
children 12 years old (12-YO) and younger who were occupants of light
passenger vehicles involved in non-rollover frontal crashes with a
known (estimated) change in velocity. During this same 5-year period,
there were 7,749 older occupants (restrained occupants older than 12
years of age) who were occupants of light passenger vehicles involved
in non-rollover frontal crashes with a known (estimated) change in
velocity.
The analysis found that 99.47 percent of restrained children 12-YO
and younger were involved in frontal crashes of speeds of 48 km/h (30
mph) or less, and 99.57 percent of such children were involved in
frontal crashes of speeds of 56 km/h (35 mph) or less. In comparison,
for older restrained occupants involved in frontal crashes, 98.5
percent and 99.27 percent were in crashes of speeds of 48 km/h (30 mph)
or less and 56 km/h (35 mph) or less, respectively (Table 6).

Table 6--Change in velocity in towaway, non rollover, frontal crashes
with known change in velocity values
[NASS-CDS 2008-2012] *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Delta]V [Delta]V
<=30 mph <=35 mph
(%) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrained Children (0-12 yrs).................... 99.47 99.57
Other Restrained Occupants........................ 98.5 99.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* unweighted data (754 restrained children 0-12 years old, 7,749 others)

These data indicate that the 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test in FMVSS
No. 213 ensures that CRSs are exposed to a crash condition which is at
least as severe as 99.47 percent of such real-world incidents involving
restrained children ages 0 to 12-YO, and that an increase in test speed
to 56.3 km/h (35 mph) will only marginally increase the crashes covered
by the standard. In contrast,

[[Page 69405]]

98.5 and 99.27 percent of older restrained occupants are involved in
crashes with a change in velocity up to 48 km/h (30 mph) and 56.3 km/h
(35 mph), respectively. The fraction of restrained children with change
in velocity over 48 km/h (30 mph) (0.53 percent) is lower than that for
older restrained occupants (1.5 percent), and this difference between
the two groups is statistically significant.\63\ Likewise, the estimate
for the fraction of restrained children with change in velocity over 56
km/h (35 mph) (0.43 percent) is lower than that for older occupants
(0.73 percent), and this difference between the two groups is
statistically significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ The analysis was conducted with unweighted data assuming
random sample selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These results reveal that restrained children are more involved in
lower-severity crashes than older occupants. The percentage of frontal
crashes of restrained children covered by the 48 km/h (30 mph) sled
test (99.47 percent) is greater than the percentage of frontal crashes
of older occupants (99.27 percent) covered by the 56 km/h (35 mph)
vehicle crash test. The data show that the current FMVSS No. 213 48 km/
h (30 mph) sled test velocity does not equate to a diminished level of
safety for restrained children as compared to older vehicle occupants.
In fact, it could be argued that FMVSS No. 213's 48 km/h (30 mph) test
provides a higher degree of protection than the 56 km/h (35 mph) test
of FMVSS No. 208 in terms of the breadth of the crashes they cover
involving the relevant restrained population.
c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files
While a 56 km/h (35 mph) change in velocity would only cover an
additional 0.1 percent of the crashes involving restrained children,
NHTSA undertook a review of case files to determine whether a change in
velocity could have possibly prevented fatal or serious injury to
children involved in the additional 0.1 percent of crashes. Among
children 0-12 YO restrained by CRSs in passenger vehicles, about 72 are
killed in crashes annually and about 634 sustain AIS 2+ injury.\64\ To
better understand the reason for injuries and fatalities among CRS-
restrained children in frontal crashes, the agency reviewed all NASS-
CDS and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) \65\ data
files for the years 2003 to 2013 for instances in which children 12-YO
and younger in CRSs \66\ in rear seats of light passenger vehicles
sustained AIS 3+ injuries in frontal crashes without rollover. Only
those cases in which the change in velocity exceeded 40 km/h (25 mph)
were considered to eliminate low severity impacts where injuries were
likely due to factors such as the child being improperly restrained, or
cases where information was unavailable to assess crash severity and
cause of injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ NASS-CDS data file 2005-2009, 79 FR 4577.
\65\ NHTSA's Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network
(CIREN) combines data collection with professional multidisciplinary
analysis of medical and engineering evidence to determine injury
causation in every crash investigation conducted.
\66\ Children in CRSs include children that may or may not be
restrained by the internal harness of a CRS or the seat belt when
using a booster seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 18 cases that met these selection criteria for the years
2003-2013. Table 7 shows a summary of the case review of the 18 cases.

Table 7--NASS-CDS & CIREN (2003-2013) Case Review: Children 12-YO and
Younger Restrained in CRSs With AIS 3+ Injuries in Frontal Impact
Without Rollover With a Change in Velocity Greater Than 40 km/h (25 mph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause of AIS 3+ Injuries Total Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross CRS Misuse........................ 7 39
Exceedingly Severe...................... 4 22
Intrusion of the Front Seat Back........ 3 17
Cargo intrusion......................... 1 6
Bracing................................. 1 6
Could not be determined................. 2 11
-------------------------------
Total............................... 18 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most frequent cause of AIS 3+ injury to children was gross CRS
misuse. Gross CRS misuse included children restrained in a CRS intended
for larger/heavier children, infant seat with the carrying handle
improperly stowed, booster seats with only the lap belt used to
restrain the child, and booster seat with no seat belt used. The second
most frequent cause of AIS 3+ injury to CRS-restrained children was
that the crash was exceedingly severe (beyond the severity of a 56 km/h
(35 mph) frontal crash).
In three cases, the front seat back intruded into the restrained
child's occupant space resulting in head or leg injuries. In one case,
the child's right humerus was fractured due to intrusion of cargo from
the trunk of the vehicle. In another case, the child's arms were braced
against the front seat back before the impact and the child sustained
arm fractures during the crash. The cause for injury in the remaining
two cases could not be determined due to lack of evidence and/or
missing or unknown data.
This hard copy case review indicates that AIS 3+ injuries to CRS-
restrained children in frontal crashes are due to CRS misuse (39
percent), excessively severe crashes (beyond 56 km/h (35 mph) crash
severity) (22 percent), and other factors unrelated to crash severity
or CRS misuse. There is no indication that a CRS designed to meet a 56
km/h (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 compliance test would have prevented any of
these injuries.
The findings from the hard copy review are in accordance with the
findings from NHTSA's National Child Restraint Use Special Study
(NCRUSS) that shows that car seat and booster seat misuse in the field
is 46 percent, and that CRS misuse is a more frequent causal factor for
AIS 3+ injury to restrained children than the severity of the
crash.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ ``Findings of the National Child Restraint Use Special
Study (NCRUSS),'' DOT HS 812 142. May 2015. NCRUSS is a large-scale
nationally-representative survey that involves both an inspection of
the child passenger's restraint system by a technician and a
detailed interview of the driver. The survey collected information
on drivers and their child passengers of ages 0-8 years between June
and August 2011. NCRUSS data were collected at 24 primary sampling
units (PSUs) across the country. The PSUs were previously
established from a separate ongoing data collection effort, the
National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). The PSUs are defined
geographically, similar to cities or counties. The PSUs were
selected to cover urban, rural, and suburban environments and are
located in 17 different States.

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

[[Page 69406]]

d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30 MPH Test Speed

In considering the sufficiency of the FMVSS No. 213 test speed,
NHTSA examined the regulations for child restraint systems that are
implemented in other countries. The review found that the frontal sled
tests in all the CRS standards simulate a 48-50 km/h (30--31.0 mph)
crash (see Table 8).

Table 8--Test Speed of Frontal Sled Tests in CRS Standards From Different Countries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Type of test Speed km/h Speed mph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNECE R.44 \68\& R.129 \69\ (Europe)........... Sled Test...................... 50 31.0
Australia AS 1754.............................. Sled Test...................... 49 30.4
FMVSS/Canadian MVSS No. 213.................... Sled Test...................... 48.2 30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the same time, the crash pulse used in FMVSS No. 213 appears
more severe than that of the European and Australian regulations.
Generally, for a given crash speed, vehicle crash acceleration pulses
with higher peak acceleration, higher initial rise rate, and shorter
duration are more severe and demanding on restraint systems. The peak
acceleration of the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse is comparable to that of
the sled pulses used in other countries. The FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse
corridor has a very rapid rise reaching peak acceleration much sooner
than the ECE R.44/R.129 or the Australian regulations. The rapid
initial rise in acceleration and the short duration of the FMVSS No.
213 acceleration pulse is also characteristic of more recent smaller
passenger car models with stiff front-ends in the U.S. fleet. The
duration of the FMVSS No. 213 pulse and the Australian regulation are
comparable but much shorter than the ECE R.44/R.129. The Canadian
standard (CMVSS No. 213) uses the same sled acceleration pulse corridor
as that specified in FMVSS No. 213.
Figure 6 shows the frontal sled pulses used in FMVSS/CMVSS No. 213,
UNECE R44/R129 and the Australian regulations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.012

e. Sled Testing of CRSs

NHTSA tested different kinds of CRSs in FMVSS No. 213-type sled
tests at 56.3 km/h (35 mph) and 48 km/h (30 mph) change of velocities.
The Agency tested the CRSs on a sled assembly comprising the current
FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly frame \70\ and the NHTSA-
Woodbridge seat cushion. To assess how CRSs would perform when
subjected to a 56 km/h (35 mph) pulse, the agency developed five pulses
using passenger vehicle crash pulses of vehicles tested to the 56 km/h
(35 mph) frontal barrier test of NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Japan, Korea, and China adopted ECE R.44 or a regulation
based on the ECE R.44.
\69\ Regulation No. 129--Enhanced Child Restraint Systems
(ECRS). Since July 2013, CRSs in Europe (and other countries) can be
approved in accordance with the new UN Regulation No. 129 for CRSs,
also known as ``I-Size Regulation.'' R.129 requires all children
under 15 months to be transported rear facing, adds requirement for
vehicle CRS compatibility, and has a dynamic test for side impact
protection. In contrast, ECE.R44 categorizes CRSs by weight groups
and does not have a side impact test.
\70\ The proposed test bench frame was not ready at the time the
56 km/h (35 mph) tests were performed. However, since the proposed
seat assembly geometry is not significantly different from the
current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly geometry, NHTSA believes the
results are comparable to a test performed in the proposed upgraded
seat assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9 below shows the velocity, crash pulse duration, and peak

[[Page 69407]]

acceleration for each of the five sled acceleration pulses. The first
row in Table 9 sets forth the characteristics of the current FMVSS No.
213 sled acceleration pulse, and the last row shows the characteristics
of the average acceleration pulse of MY 2012 passenger vehicles in the
56 km/h (35 mph) NCAP frontal crash test. Figure 7 shows the sled
acceleration pulse profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ Average crash acceleration time histories from MY 2012
passenger vehicles in NCAP frontal crash tests.

Table 9--Sled and Vehicle Acceleration Pulse Characteristics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulse Velocity (mph) Duration (ms) Peak acceleration (G)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.............................................. 29.7 81 23.0
A................................................ 34.3 91 33.5
B................................................ 35.0 95 31.5
C................................................ 34.3-34.6 101-103 29.0-29.3
D................................................ 34.4-35.0 100-105 26.9-29.0
E................................................ 34.5-34.8 111 25.6-25.8
Average NCAP \71\................................ 35.0 104 32.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.013

In the 2003 final rule (supra),\72\ the Agency identified factors
of the acceleration pulse associated with crash severity: change in
velocity, peak acceleration, and acceleration pulse duration.
Generally, for the same change in velocity, acceleration pulses of
higher peak acceleration and shorter duration are higher in crash
severity. The 2003 final rule also identified a rapid rise in initial
acceleration to be associated with higher crash severity. Applying
these criteria to the acceleration pulses shown in Table 9 and Figure
7, pulse A could be the most severe and E the least severe. Although
the current FMVSS No. 213 acceleration pulse (see Figure 7) has lower
peak Gs and a lower change in velocity than the other 5 sled
acceleration pulses (A through E), the FMVSS No. 213 pulse is
reasonably severe because of the rapid rise in acceleration in the
initial portion of the pulse (for comparison, see acceleration pulses D
and E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ 68 FR 37640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sled acceleration pulses A, B, and C have a pulse shape and
peak acceleration level similar to the 2012 NCAP average crash pulse.
They have a sharp decline to approximately 17g then a gradual decline
to approximately 35 g. Sled acceleration pulses D and E have a smoother
sinusoidal shape with lower peak acceleration levels.
Forward-Facing CRSs
NHTSA tested three forward-facing CRSs equipped with internal
harnesses on the sled using the five different 56.3 km/h (35 mph) sled
pulses and the FMVSS No. 213 48 km/h (30 mph) pulse and the HIII-3YO
and HIII-6YO dummies. The CRSs were attached to the standard seat
assembly using the child restraint anchorage system (``LATCH'' lower
anchors and tether).
Test results showed the HIII-6YO dummy exhibiting unrepresentative
kinematics during the test. In some tests, severe head-to-knee contact
occurred due to the legs of the dummy rotating upwards during the test.
The

[[Page 69408]]

Agency deemed this kinematic to be unrepresentative as it is unlikely
that the legs of a 6YO child in a vehicle would rotate upwards; the
front seat structure would impede such rotation. (The Agency attempted
to retest the CRSs with the legs of the HIII-6YO tied to the seat
assembly, but sometimes this did not prevent the legs from rotating
upwards.)
The Radian 65 model was tested with pulse E (with and without legs
restrained) and in both tests the HIII-6YO dummy head and chest injury
measures exceeded the allowable threshold levels (see Table 10). The
Radian 65 model was also tested with pulse D and the dummy's chest
acceleration exceeded threshold levels while HIC was barely within the
threshold level (98.1 percent of 1,000 threshold level). There was
chin-to-chest contact for the HIII-6YO dummy in the tests with the
Radian 65 that resulted in high head and chest injury measures.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.014

The Graco MyRide 65 was tested in 4 pulse types (A, C, D, and E)
with the HIII-6YO dummy. In tests with pulses A, C, and D, the dummy's
HIC value exceeded the injury threshold level of 1,000 due to head-to-
knee contact. When tested with the HIII-6YO dummy with pulse E, HIC and
chest acceleration threshold levels were met, but HIC reached 993 (99.3
percent of 1,000 injury threshold). On average, in sled tests of the
Graco MyRide 65, HIC values were 72 percent greater, chest acceleration
were 16 percent higher, head excursions were 24 percent higher,

[[Page 69409]]

and knee excursions were 32 percent higher in tests with the 56 km/h
(35 mph) sled pulses than in the corresponding tests with the FMVSS No.
213 sled pulse.
The Graco ComfortSport CRS was tested using the HIII-3YO dummy with
acceleration pulses B, C, and D. The CRS met the HIC and chest
acceleration performance criteria; however, HIC and head excursions
were at elevated levels near the performance limits. HIC values were on
average 65 percent greater and head excursions were 30 percent higher
in tests with the 56 km/h (35 mph) sled pulses than in the
corresponding tests with the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse.
Rear-Facing and Booster Seats
NHTSA tested two rear-facing CRSs with the current FMVSS No. 213
acceleration and acceleration pulse C, using the HIII-3YO and CRABI-
12MO dummies. Results showed no performance measures exceeding their
corresponding threshold levels. However, HIC (953) was very close to
the threshold value in the test with the infant carrier (Peg Perego
Viaggio) with the CRABI-12MO dummy.
NHTSA also conducted nine tests of the Evenflo Big Kid High Back
Booster Seat with pulses A, B, C, D, and E, and three tests of the
Evenflo Big Kid Backless Booster seat with pulses D and E. This test
series used the HIII-6YO and HIII-10YO dummies. All the performance
measures were within threshold levels in these tests. However, HIC was
about 52 percent higher in tests with the 56 km/h sled pulse compared
to the current FMVSS No. 213 sled acceleration pulse.
Summary of Sled Test Data
The tests conducted at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) and 56.3 km/h (35 mph)
indicate that increasing the test speed to 56.3 km/h (35 mph):
Results in a high rate of failures of forward-facing CRSs
tested with the HIII-6YO test dummy. This suggests that most forward-
facing CRSs that are subject to testing with the HIII-6YO dummy would
need redesigning to meet HIC and chest acceleration performance
criteria. Alternatively, CRS manufacturers might choose not to sell
forward-facing CRSs that are subject to testing with the HIII-6YO
dummy, i.e., CRSs recommended for use by children weighing over 18.2 kg
(40 lb),\73\ which would reduce the availability of those CRSs to the
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ The agency is unable to estimate the number of CRS models
that would need redesign due to the limited nature of the agency's
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Causes unrepresentative head-to-knee contacts that result
in high HIC values in convertible CRSs tested in a forward-facing
configuration with the HIII-6YO. Real world data indicate that while
head-to-knee contacts may be present in the real world during a crash,
they do not result in head injuries.
Causes unrepresentative head-to-chest contact for the
HIII-6YO dummy in forward-facing CRSs that result in high head and
chest injury measures.
Results in injury measures closer to the standard's limit
in some rear-facing CRSs and booster seats. This suggests that some
rear-facing CRSs and booster seats may need modification.

f. Agency Decision

As discussed above, after reviewing real world crash data,
regulations of other countries, and sled test data, the Agency has
decided not to increase the test velocity of FMVSS No. 213 to 56.3 km/h
(35 mph). To summarize, the reasons are as follows:
CRSs are already highly effective in preventing injuries
and fatalities in motor vehicle crashes. NASS-CDS data files show that
restrained children are more involved in lower-severity crashes than
older occupants. The percentage of frontal crashes of restrained
children covered by the 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test is greater than the
percentage of frontal crashes of restrained older occupants covered by
the 56 km/h (35 mph) vehicle crash test. The FMVSS No. 213 48 km/h (30
mph) sled test velocity does not equate to a diminished level of safety
for restrained children as compared to older vehicle occupants. In
fact, it could be argued that FMVSS No. 213's 48 km/h (30 mph) test
provides a higher degree of protection than the 56 km/h (35 mph) test
of FMVSS No. 208 in terms of the breadth of the crashes they cover
involving the relevant restrained population.
There is no safety need to raise the FMVSS No. 213 test
speed to 56 km/h (35 mph). A 56 km/h (35 mph) change in velocity would
only cover an additional 0.1 percent of the crashes involving
restrained children, which suggests that the benefits accrued from a
higher test velocity would be very small. While only an additional 0.1
percent of the crashes would be covered, NHTSA undertook a review of
case files to determine whether a change in velocity could have
possibly prevented fatal or serious injury to children involved in the
additional 0.1 percent of crashes. The review showed that AIS 3+
injuries to CRS restrained children in frontal crashes are due to CRS
misuse, excessively severe crashes beyond 56 km/h (35 mph) crash
severity, and other factors unrelated to crash severity. There is no
indication that a CRS designed to meet a 56.3 km/h (35 mph) FMVSS No.
213 compliance test would have prevented or mitigated any of these
injuries.
It is unclear whether a 56 km/h (35 mph) test velocity is
appropriate for the FMVSS No. 213 sled test environment with the larger
size dummies. The test dummies used in the test showed possible
unrepresentative dummy kinematics (exacerbated head-to-knee or chin-to-
chest contact) that result in high injury measures near or above the
established threshold limits.
There may be unintended safety consequences associated
with raising the FMVSS No. 213 test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph). The
Agency's sled tests conducted with various crash pulses of a 56 km/h
(35mph) change in velocity indicate that the designs of many forward-
facing CRSs would need to be changed to comply with performance
requirements of a 56 km/h (35 mph) sled velocity test. The testing also
suggests that some rear-facing CRSs and booster seats may need design
modifications. The design changes may increase the weight, cost, and
size of these CRSs. NHTSA is concerned that the design changes could
potentially reduce the usability of CRSs, resulting in non-use or
misuse of child restraints for no real benefit. In addition, there is a
concern that CRSs redesigned to meet increased test velocities may not
perform as well in the more common low speed crashes.
The current 48 km/h (30 mph) FMVSS No. 213 sled test
velocity is similar, if not more severe, than those in CRS regulations
of other countries. It may be considered more severe because of its
rapid initial rise in acceleration and its short duration.
Accordingly, after consideration of these factors, NHTSA has
decided that raising the FMVSS No. 213 test speed to 56 km/h (35 mph)
is unwarranted at this time.

VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New Seat Assembly Designs

a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly Design (V1)

NHTSA sled tested a wide array of CRSs to see how they performed on
the initial seat assembly design \74\ (referred

[[Page 69410]]

to in this NPRM as Version 1 (V1)). The V1 seat assembly design
drawings were placed in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0055-0002 on May 17,
2015. The tests were conducted with an acceleration pulse within the
FMVSS No. 213 specified acceleration corridor, with a peak acceleration
of 21.2 g and average sled velocity of 46.9 km/h (29.2 mph). All CRSs
met the current FMVSS No. 213 performance requirements, as well as the
proposed head excursion requirement for forward-facing CRSs in the
untethered condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ The initial standard seat assembly design (V1) used in
these sled tests only differed from the proposed standard seat
assembly (V2) in minor ways. The initial standard seat assembly used
in these sled tests had a shorter seat back height and slightly
different seat belt and child restraint anchorage locations. NHTSA
performed tests on the proposed standard seat assembly (V2) of some
of the CRSs that were tested on V1 standard seat assembly; results
showed no significant difference in CRS performance on the two
standard seat assemblies. These results are discussed in the next
section. Because there were no significant differences in CRS
performance on the two seat assemblies, the agency considers the
results of CRS tests on V1 relevant in ascertaining the performance
of CRSs on V2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The study consisted of 53 tests of 23 CRS models of 12 different
makes (i.e. Chicco, Britax, Evenflo, etc.). The Agency \75\ and booster
type CRSs. The Agency selected CRSs based on: Sales volume; CRS types,
makes and models; CRS weight; CRS child weight/height recommendations;
variety of design (different belt path location, base size for rear-
facing only CRSs); and special features (such as an inflatable feature,
presence of a support leg and of rigid attachments to child restraint
anchorage systems). The CRSs represented a wide variety of CRSs from
different manufacturers and are representative of the range of CRSs in
the current market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ A combination CRS is a type of forward-facing car seat that
is used with an internal harness system to secure a child. With
removal of the internal harness, it can be used as a belt-
positioning booster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tests were performed with test dummies currently used in FMVSS No.
213, including the CRABI-12MO, HIII-3YO, HIII-6YO and HIII-10YO. The
CRSs equipped with harnesses were installed by means that included: (a)
The lower anchors of a child restraint anchorage system; (b) lower
anchors and tether; (c) 3-point belt; (d) 2-point belt; (e) 3-point
belt with tether; and (f) 2-point belt with tether.
Table 11 provides a test matrix of the CRS name, orientation,
installation method, dummy used and injury measures. All the CRSs
tested on the proposed standard seat assembly met all current
performance requirements in FMVSS No. 213 except for one CRS (Evenflo
Titan Elite). The HIC and chest acceleration values were below injury
threshold levels of 1,000 and 60 g, respectively, in all the tests. The
head and knee excursions of the dummies used in testing forward-facing
CRSs and booster seats were below allowable limits (head excursion of
813 mm (32 inches) without tether use and 720 mm (28 inches) with
tether use, knee excursion of 915 mm (36 inches)) with all the CRS
models tested, except in a test with the Evenflo Titan Elite where the
head excursion of the HIII-6YO dummy was 815 mm (32 inches).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 69411]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.015

Table 12 shows that the back support angle of rear-facing CRSs did
not exceed 70 degrees in any of the tests with the proposed standard
seat assembly.

[[Page 69412]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.016

Paired Tests
NHTSA compared some of the CRSs tested on the V1 standard seat
assembly with available compliance test data (using the current FMVSS
No. 213 standard seat assembly) to see whether changes in the standard
seat assembly affected CRS performance. The comparison was limited in
that current compliance tests of CRSs with internal harnesses are
conducted with a 2-point belt to install the CRS (tethered and
untethered conditions), while the fleet tests with the V1 standard seat
assembly were conducted with a 3-point attachment (tethered and
untethered). In addition, some compliance tests used the H2-6YO at the
manufacturer's option, while all applicable fleet tests with the V1
standard seat assembly used the HIII-6YO dummy.
Rear-Facing CRSs
Table 13 compares the results of sled tests on the V1 standard seat
assembly with results from compliance tests using the same rear-facing
infant and convertible CRS models. All performance measures were below
threshold levels. Paired T-test indicated that at a 95 percent
confidence level, the HIC injury measures of the CRABI-12MO in tests
with the V1 standard seat assembly were not significantly different
from those with the current FMVSS No. 213 specified standard seat
assembly. On the other hand, the chest acceleration of the CRABI-12MO
was significantly different (lower) in tests with the V1 seat assembly
than those in current compliance tests (p<0.01). The average reduction
in chest acceleration when tested on the V1 standard seat assembly was
4.7 g.

[[Page 69413]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.017

[[Page 69414]]

Forward-Facing CRSs
The results of the sled tests with the V1 standard seat assembly on
forward-facing CRSs, versus compliance tests, are shown in Table 14.
The paired sled tests showed that all injury measures were below injury
threshold levels. Paired T-test of each of the HIII-3YO performance
measures in Table 14 showed no significant difference (95 percent
confidence level) when tested in the V1 standard seat assembly and the
current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly. Only one paired test was performed
using the HIII-6YO dummy, so a paired T-test was not possible.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.018

Booster Seats
Results of paired sled tests of booster seats tested on the V1
standard seat assembly and on the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly
are shown in Table 15. All injury measures were below injury threshold
levels. The paired sled tests showed a 37.2 percent average reduction
in HIC measures and a 29.3 percent average increase in head excursion
in all the booster seat models tested on the proposed standard seat
assembly compared to the paired compliance test.
Paired T-test indicated that HIC injury measures and head
excursions in booster seat tests with the V1 standard seat assembly
were significantly different (95 percent confidence level) than those
in tests with the current FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly. On the
other hand, paired T-test indicated no significant difference (95
percent confidence level) in chest acceleration and knee excursions in
tests with the V1 standard seat assembly and the current FMVSS No. 213
standard seat assembly.

[[Page 69415]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.019

Summary of Sled Test Results With the V1 Standard Seat Assembly
All CRSs tested on the V1 standard seat assembly, except for one,
met the FMVSS No. 213 performance requirements.
Comparing performance measures from a sample of sled tests
conducted with the V1 standard seat assembly and from FMVSS No. 213
compliance tests indicate the following:
Rear-facing CRSs with CRABI-12MO: No significant
differences in HIC measures but chest accelerations were lower in tests
with the V1 standard seat assembly.
Forward-facing CRSs with HIII-3YO and HIII-6YO: No
significant differences in any of the performance measures (HIC, chest
acceleration, head excursion, and knee excursion).
Booster seats with HIII-6YO: HIC measures were lower and
head excursions were higher in tests with the V1 standard seat
assembly. Chest accelerations and knee excursions were not
significantly different from the compliance tests.
There were no high head acceleration spikes or severe
chin-to-chest contact in any of the sled tests with the proposed seat
assembly.
Testing with the V1 standard seat assembly results in only
some minor changes in CRS performance relative to the specified
performance limits.

b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly Design (V2)

During the research test series with the initial bench design (V1),
a few glitches were noticed, primarily with the anchorages and the seat
back height. The lower anchorages deformed due to the loads during
testing and the shoulder belt anchor was positioned in an overly
outboard location causing the dummy to roll out of the shoulder belt in
low back booster seat tests. The seat back height of the initial bench
design was too low (not within one standard deviation of the average)
and during low back booster seat testing, the dummies would hit the
exposed metal seat back in the rebound phase causing a significant
spike in head acceleration due to the contact.
In response, the Agency modified the initial bench design (V1) by:
(a) Changing the design of the lower anchorages to prevent their
deformation and to facilitate their easy replacement; (b) placing the
shoulder belt anchor in

[[Page 69416]]

a more inboard position that was more representative of the anchor
location in the vehicle fleet and that mitigated unrealistic dummy
rollout during low back booster seat tests; and, (c) increasing the
seat back height to one that was more representative of seat back
height in the vehicle fleet, which would also mitigate dummy head
strikes with metal structure behind the seat when testing low back
booster seats. These changes to the initial bench design (V1) resulted
in the proposed standard seat assembly (referred to in this NPRM as
Version 2 (V2)). Schematics of these changes were placed on August 25,
2015 in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0055-0008), with more detailed drawings
placed there in July 2018.
NHTSA performed a second series of sled tests with CRSs to see how
they performed on V2 (the seat assembly proposed in this NPRM). The
tests were conducted with an acceleration pulse within the FMVSS No.
213 specified acceleration corridor, with a peak acceleration of 21.2 g
and average sled velocity of 46.9 km/h (29.2 mph). The study consisted
of 40 tests of 24 CRS models of 10 different CRS makes. NHTSA tested
infant, convertible, combination and booster type CRSs. Twenty-two (22)
tests also replicated the selection of tests performed with the V1
standard seat assembly, to compare the performance of 15 CRS models.
Four (4) tests used previously-selected CRSs models but were tested in
a different attachment configuration or used a different sized dummy.
Fifteen (15) tests were performed with 10 newly-selected CRS models
that included some newer models in the market with particular design
features (i.e., Britax Clicktight technology, Graco Affix Booster with
lower anchorage attachments) and expanded the variety of CRS makes and
models evaluated with V1.
Tests were performed with CRABI-12MO, HIII-3YO, HIII-6YO and HIII-
10YO. Rear-facing and forward-facing CRSs equipped with harnesses were
installed by means that included: (a) The lower anchors of a child
restraint anchorage system; (b) lower anchors and tether; (c) 3-point
belt; and (d), 3-point belt with tether as appropriate. Booster seats
were tested using a 3-point belt, and in the case of the Graco Affix,
the lower anchors were attached to the bench per manufacturer's
instructions.
Table 16 provides a test matrix of the CRS name, orientation,
installation method, dummy used and injury measures. All the rear-
facing CRSs, forward-facing CRSs with tether attached and booster seats
tested on the proposed standard seat assembly (V2) met all performance
requirements in FMVSS No. 213, regardless of the method of attachment
to the seat (child restraint anchorage system or lap/shoulder belt),
for each of the dummies used. For forward-facing CRSs tested without
the tether attached, HIC, chest acceleration, and knee excursions were
below performance limits in all the tests regardless of the method of
attachment to the standard seat assembly, for each of the dummies used.
Head excursions were below the performance limits for all the CRSs
tested with the HIII-3YO, HIII-6YO, and HIII-10YO except for one CRS
model. The Diono Radian R120 tested without the tether attached
exceeded the head excursion limit using the HIII-10YO dummy.

[[Page 69417]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.020

Comparison of sled tests on the initial (V1) and proposed (V2)
standard seat assemblies with the same dummy restrained in the same or
similar CRS model show that dummy performance measures were similar in
both standard seat assemblies (see Table 17).

[[Page 69418]]

Paired T-test of rear-facing infant and convertible CRS models
indicate that at a 95 percent confidence level, the HIC and chest
acceleration injury measures in rear-facing infant and convertible CRS
tests using the CRABI 12 MO and HIII-3YO dummy on V1 were not
significantly different from those from tests on V2.
Paired T-test of each of the HIII-3YO and HIII-6YO performance
measures in Table 17 showed no significant difference (95 percent
confidence level) when tested on V1 compared to V2, except for knee
excursions of the HIII-6YO. Knee excursions of the HIII-6YO were on
average 59 mm higher on the V1 standard seat assembly than on the V2
seat assembly.
Paired T-test of each of the HIII-6YO head and knee excursions
showed no significant difference (95% confidence level) when tested on
the V1 and proposed (V2) standard seat assemblies. HIC results showed a
significant change (p<0.01) but HIC measures were well within the head
injury threshold level of 1,000. Only one paired test was performed
using the HIII-10YO dummy; therefore, a paired T-test was not possible.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 69419]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.021

[[Page 69420]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.022

[[Page 69421]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.023

[[Page 69422]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.024

Three CRS models (Evenflo Nurture, Graco Nautilus, and Graco Affix)
were tested three times on the proposed standard seat assembly (V2) to
evaluate repeatability of the sled tests. Results showed that the
coefficient of variation

[[Page 69423]]

(CV) of the injury measures was under 10 percent, which is repeatable
(see Table 18).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.025

[[Page 69424]]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
The higher seat back in the V2 seat assembly was intended to reduce
dummy head contact with rear seat structure of the seat assembly that
was observed in the V1 seat assembly. While the number of head contacts
with the rear seat structure were reduced compared to the V1 assembly,
head contact still occurs in the V2 seat assembly when testing backless
booster seats with the HIII-6YO dummy. For these tests, the HIC
calculation was made using a head acceleration pulse truncated between
175-200 msec that corresponded to a time in the rebound phase before
the head impact with the seat support structure. NHTSA seeks comment on
whether, in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test, HIC should be computed
for backless booster seats tested with the HIII-6YO dummy using an
acceleration pulse that is truncated to 175 msec.
Summary of All Sled Test Performed on the Proposed Seat Assembly (V2)
NHTSA performed 40 tests using 24 CRS models and 10 makes using the
proposed seat assembly (V2). Results showed the following:
Rear-facing CRSs including infant carriers and
convertibles tested with the CRABI-12MO or the HIII-3YO dummies: Six
(6) CRS models were tested with the CRABI-12MO dummy and 4 were tested
with the HIII-3YO dummy. All the CRSs tested met all the performance
requirements.
Forward-facing CRSs tested with the HIII-3YO dummy: One
(1) CRS model was tested with tether attached and two (2) CRS models
were tested without tether attached. All CRSs tested met all the
performance requirements.
Forward-facing CRSs tested with the HIII-6YO dummy: Four
(4) CRSs tested with the tether attached met all the performance
requirements. Four (4) CRS models were tested without the tether
attached. All met all the performance requirements.
Forward-facing CRSs tested with the HIII-10YO dummy: One
(1) CRS model was tested with the tether attached and 2 CRS models were
tested without the use of the tether. The CRS tested with the tether
attached met all performance requirements. The CRSs tested without the
tether met all performance requirements, except for one that exceeded
the head excursion limit.
Booster seats with the HIII-6YO dummy: Six (6) booster
seat models were tested and all met all performance requirements.
Booster seats with the HIII-10YO dummy: Three (3) booster
seat models were tested and all met all performance requirements.

VIII. Communicating With Today's Parents

NHTSA proposes to amend several of FMVSS No. 213's owner
information and labeling requirements to improve communication with
today's CRS owners.

a. CRS Owner Registration

1. Background
NHTSA established a CRS owner registration program in FMVSS No. 213
(S5.8) to increase the ``completion rate'' of recalled restraints,
i.e., the percentage of recalled units sold to consumers for which the
consumer contacts the manufacturer for free remedy of the defect or
noncompliance.\76\ Prior to the registration program in FMVSS No. 213,
there was a 10 to 13 percent completion rate for child restraint
recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ Final rule, 57 FR 41428, September 10, 1992. NHTSA also
issued the rule to assist the agency in determining whether
manufacturers met their recall notification responsibilities under
the Vehicle Safety Act, and to motivate owners to register CRSs for
recall notification purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA believed that the CRS completion rate could be increased by
disseminating recall information directly to individual owners. Prior
to the program, consumers were only indirectly notified of a safety
recall by notice to the general public. At the same time, CRS owners
were eager to know if their CRS was recalled and were highly motivated
to remedy their CRSs if the restraints had been recalled.\77\ Given
this interest, NHTSA believed that owners were not completing the
remedy because they were unaware that their CRS had been recalled.
NHTSA adopted the registration program to facilitate direct
notification of owners in a recall campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ NPRM, February 19, 1991, 56 FR 6603, 6604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three aspects to the registration program: (a)
Manufacturers' providing a registration form to purchasers of new CRSs;
(b) labeling on the CRS and in the owner's manual to notify and
register owners who did not use the mail-in card (this particularly
targets second-hand owners of the CRS); and (c) recordkeeping
requirements for manufacturers to maintain registrants' contact
information for 6 years in case a defect or noncompliance arose with
the CRS leading to a safety recall (49 CFR part 588, ``Child restraint
systems recordkeeping requirements''). This NPRM proposes changes to
program aspects (a) and (b).
With regard to (a) above, FMVSS No. 213 requires manufacturers to
provide a standardized, postage-paid registration form with each
CRS.\78\ The Agency designed the form in part using information
obtained in a NHTSA study of consumers' attitudes about the intended
program.\79\ The researchers found that focus group participants--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ The form must be attached to a contactable surface of the
CRS so that the owner will notice the form and need to handle it
physically.
\79\ See March 9, 1993 final rule discussion of focus group
testing by National Analysts, ``Child Safety Seat Registration: The
Consumer View,'' February 1991, 57 FR at 41426.

[I]ndicated that they would be most likely to return a pre-
addressed, postage-prepaid card with an uncluttered graphic design
that clearly and succinctly communicates the benefits of recall
registration, differentiates itself from a warranty registration
card, and requires minimal time and effort of the participant's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
part.

The study also showed that participants reacted favorably to the
idea of being assured by the manufacturer that their names would not be
placed on a mailing list if they registered their restraints.
In view of the study's findings, NHTSA standardized the form's text
and layout to increase the likelihood that the owners would register.
The form consists of two parts (see Figures 9a and 9b of FMVSS No.
213). The first part (``information card'') contains a message on the
importance of registering the CRS and instructions for registering.\80\
The information card is intended to motivate owners to register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ In 2005, NHTSA amended the requirements to permit
information regarding online registration to be included on this
part of the owner registration form (September 9, 2005; 70 FR
53569).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part (``mail-in card'') is to be mailed in by the owner
to register. On the mail-in card, manufacturers must preprint their
return address and information identifying the model name or number of
the CRS to which the form is attached, so that owners do not need to
look up and provide that information themselves (a possible impediment
to completing the registration). The card must have distinct spaces for
the owner to fill in his/her name and address and must use tint to
highlight to the owner that minimal input is required to register. To
distinguish the mail-in card from a warranty card or some kind of
advertisement material, the standard prohibits any other information
from appearing on the card, except for identifying information that
distinguishes a particular CRS from other systems of that model name or
number. The card must meet minimum U.S. Postal Service size and
thickness specifications so that it can be mailed as a postcard. To
encourage consumers to mail back the card, manufacturers must pay the
postage.

[[Page 69425]]

2. Overview
The CRS owner registration program has had mixed success. Prior to
the registration program in FMVSS No. 213, there was a 10 to 13 percent
completion rate for child restraint recalls. The average recall
completion rate is about 40 percent in recent years, which, while much
higher than that before the program, is still low compared to the
completion rate for vehicle recalls.\81\ When NHTSA issued the final
rule adopting the registration program (1992), the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) had information showing a return rate for
warranty cards of 20 to 30 percent for cards that did not have postage
paid and 40 percent for cards that had postage paid. The current
average registration rate for child restraint systems is only 23
percent, even with a postage-paid card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ The average recall completion rate for vehicles for the 10-
year period from 2006 to 2015 is 79 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's intention in issuing this NPRM is to raise the 23 percent
CRS owner registration rate. By raising the registration rate, the
Agency seeks to raise the CRS recall completion rate.
NHTSA is taking graduated steps to raise the CRS owner registration
rate. NHTSA's CRS registration program primarily involves the
interaction between the CRS manufacturer and the CRS owner; the primary
instrument enabling and facilitating that interaction is the
registration form required by S5.8 of the standard.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ This NPRM focuses on improving the registration form to
enhance the interaction between manufacturers and owners but the
agency asks for comment on ways registration rates could possibly
improve by the involvement of third parties, such as retailers and
other dealers. NHTSA is interested in learning about programs that
have involved point-of-sale registration, the practicalities of the
arrangement (e.g., how the merchant conveyed the owner information
to the manufacturer), and the successes and challenges associated
with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRS manufacturers have expressed to NHTSA their interest in
exploring different registration methods, given the advances in
communication technologies. They would like to optimize the design of
the registration form to increase registrations. However, the current
registration form requirements prevent CRS manufacturers from changing
the language and format of the form to capture the consumer's interest
and persuade them to register.
In response, the agency is proposing to provide flexibility to CRS
manufacturers in the content and format of the form. NHTSA believes
that manufacturers will take advantage of additional flexibilities to
craft more optimized and effective forms of communication that will
lead to higher rates of registration without introducing consumer
confusion that could have an adverse effect on registration. The Agency
requests comment on this assumption for all aspects of the proposed
changes here.
Twenty-eight (28) years have passed since the final rule \83\
establishing the registration program for FMVSS No. 213. Since that
time, a generation of children has grown to become the new parents of
today. This new generation grew up with and continues to interact with
vast, rapidly-changing advancements in electronic communication and
information technology. To make FMVSS No. 213 more responsive to the
communication preferences and practices of today's parents, this NPRM
would provide manufacturers leeway to use additional modern and
creative means of outreach and information exchange in an effort to
increase owner registration rates. NHTSA's purpose in allowing this
flexibility is to allow CRS manufacturers the opportunity to cultivate
their method of communicating with their customer-caregivers and to use
innovative ways to get their customers to register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ Final rule, 57 FR 41428, September 10, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the same time, however, NHTSA believes that the registration
form also must be designed to meet the needs of owners who may not have
access to or may not be comfortable with modern electronic means of
communication. The Agency has drafted the proposed amendatory language
in a way that maintains features of the current form for owners who
would register by mail.
NHTSA also recognizes that reducing the restrictions on the content
and format of the form reduces the standardization of the form, which
raises some concerns. The standardized registration form is readily
recognizable, easy to understand and designed with carefully considered
text and formatting features. When manufacturers are given substantial
leeway to design content and format, it introduces a risk that some
designs may be confusing or ineffective. This proposal provides more
flexibility but also limits certain aspects of design that NHTSA
believes would be ineffective, such as advertisements on the form, and
the Agency requests comment on whether any other aspects should be
similarly prohibited. Likewise, the Agency requests comment on whether
any of the design aspects that the agency has proposed to cease being
standardized should, instead, remain standardized.
Further, in the event NHTSA finalizes the proposal to increase
flexibility here, NHTSA anticipates that it will monitor the content
and format that manufacturers use on the forms to see if more
standardization is needed. Standardization might be appropriate not
only to disallow confusing or ineffective designs, but to promote
particularly effective content and format that have resulted in
increased registration rates.
3. Proposed Changes to the Registration Program
i. Information Card
The information card is the top part of the two-part registration
form shown in Figures 9a and 9b of FMVSS No. 213. The size, font,
color, and layout of the information card are currently prescribed in
Figures 9a and 9b, as is the attachment method (fold/perforation) of
the information card to the lower part of the form (the mail-in card).
The information 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.
The Agency proposes to remove the restrictions on size, font,
color, layout, and attachment method of the information card portion.
These changes would provide flexibility to CRS manufacturers on how the
required information is presented to the consumer. The Agency believes
that these changes have the potential to increase registration rates,
but does not have information suggesting the extent to which this would
occur and requests comments on what effect, in any, these changes will
have on increasing registration rates. Comments are also requested on
whether a two-part registration form format is warranted. Assuming it
is, this NPRM proposes that manufacturers can decide how the
information card is attached to the mail-in card. The agency believes
that the information card should be easily detachable from the mail-in
card portion, without the use of scissors and the like.
In addition, the agency is proposing to amend the requirements in
(a) and (b) above such that the wording would no longer be prescribed.
Instead, CRS manufacturers would be given leeway to use their own words
to convey the importance of registering the CRS and to instruct how
registration is achieved. NHTSA would allow statements explaining how
consumers can use

[[Page 69426]]

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 requests comment on any benefits or safety risks of allowing
manufacturers to provide their own language here.
NHTSA also proposes to permit or possibly require a statement that
the information collected through the registration process will not be
used by the manufacturer for any purpose other than contacting the
consumer in the event of a recall. Comments are requested on NHTSA's
requiring such a statement. NHTSA also proposes to continue to prohibit
any other information unrelated to the registration of the CRS, such as
advertising or warranty information.
These proposed changes to the information card, if adopted, would
affect the collection of information, ``Consolidated Child Restraint
System Registration, Labeling and Defect Notification,'' OMB Control
Number: 2127-0576. This NPRM includes a request for comment on the
collection of information. Comments are requested from manufacturers on
whether they plan to take advantage of this increased flexibility in
providing information to consumers to motivate them to register their
child restraints.
ii. Mail-In Card
The Agency proposes that the mail-in card portion of the form (the
lower half of the form depicted in Figures 9a and 9b of FMVSS No. 213)
does not need to be changed.\84\ The current mail-in card has the basic
elements needed for registering by mail, including the necessary owner
contact information, preprinted CRS restraint information (Figure 9a),
manufacturer's preprinted address and prepaid postage information
(Figure 9b), and minimum size of the card (important so it can be
mailed to the manufacturer as a postcard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Typographical errors would be corrected, such as the
spelling of the words ``postage'' and ``mailed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA requests comment on whether other elements should be added to
or eliminated from the currently required mail-in card, and if leeway
should be given on how the card is formatted.
iii. Electronic Registration Form
FMVSS No. 213 currently permits manufacturers to provide a web
address on the information card to enable owners to register online
(S5.8.1(d)). The web address must provide a direct link to an
``electronic registration form'' meeting the requirements of S5.8.2 of
the standard. Under S5.8.2, the electronic registration form must
conform to a specified format and have certain content, including: (a)
A prescribed message to advise the consumer of the importance of
registering; (b) prescribed instructions on how to register; and, (c)
fields to record the CRS's model name or number and date of
manufacture, and the owner's name, mailing address, and optionally, the
owner's email address.
This NPRM proposes to amend S5.8.1(d) so that the electronic form
may be reached by using methods other than a web address. For instance,
should consumers be able to access the electronic form by a code (such
as a QR \85\ code)? NHTSA is also considering amending S5.8.l to delete
the specific reference to an ``electronic registration form,'' and,
instead, reference any electronic means to register owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ QR code means Quick Response Code. This is a matrix barcode
similar to a standard Universal Product Code (UPC) barcode but has
greater storage capacity. Usually QR codes are used for product
tracking, item identification and general marketing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to the requirements for the electronic registration
form (S5.8.2), NHTSA proposes to change the requirements for elements
(a) and (b) above, from NHTSA-prescribed messages to messages crafted
by the CRS manufacturer conveying the importance of registering and
instructions on how to register. Comments are requested on whether
S5.8.2 should be further amended, possibly by rescinding some of the
requirements in that section. What changes are needed to allow
innovative electronic methods for registering CRSs? How can FMVSS No.
213 facilitate use of those technologies? What benefits or safety risks
would be introduced by allowing these flexibilities?
iv. Information on Labels and in Owners' Manuals
NHTSA also proposes that provisions in FMVSS No. 213 requiring
information on registering CRSs on child restraint labels \86\ and in
owners' manuals \87\ also be amended in the manner discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ See S5.5.2(m) and S5.5.5(k).
\87\ See S5.6.1.7 and S5.6.2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs

NHTSA proposes to lessen restrictions in labeling and owner's
manual requirements so that manufacturers have more flexibility in
providing information on correct CRS use (S5.5, S5.6). The agency
intends for manufacturers to determine the words and diagrams that most
effectively instruct consumers on using their CRSs and to determine how
the labeling should be presented to communicate best with consumers.
The goal of the proposal is to increase the correct use of CRSs.
1. Removing Requirements for Specific Wording
FMVSS No. 213 requires manufacturers to label CRSs with information
on the maximum height and weight of the children who can safely occupy
the system (S5.5.2(f)). NHTSA believes there is a continued need for
this ``use information'' to be permanently labeled on CRSs. However,
because S5.5.2(f) prescribes specific statements for the label that
have become dated and that are not optimized for particular CRS designs
and features, the agency proposes to rescind the requirement that they
be used. Instead, NHTSA proposes requiring that the information be
provided for each mode the CRS can be used (rear-facing, forward-
facing, booster) and, subject to the conditions discussed below,
manufacturers would have the flexibility to provide the use information
in statements or a combination of statements and pictograms at
locations that they deem most effective.
The proposed conditions are based on sound best practice
recommendations developed by the child passenger safety community.
Conditions on the Provided Use Information
i. NHTSA and the entire child passenger safety community strongly
recommend that children up to the age of 1 be kept riding rear-facing
at least up to the age of 1. NHTSA further recommends that children 1
to 3 years of age ride rear-facing as long as possible, until they
reach the manufacturer-recommended upper height or weight limit for
riding rear-facing in the CRS, and that children 4 to 7 years of age
ride forward-facing in CRSs with internal harnesses as long as they are
within the height and weight limits allowed by the CRS's
manufacturer.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ https://www.safercar.gov/parents/CarSeats/Right-Car-Seat-Age-Size.htm?view=full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With these recommendations in mind, NHTSA proposes that the use
information manufacturers provide for CRSs that can be used in multiple
``modes'' (rear-facing, forward-facing, booster) must provide
information about the weight and height of children for

[[Page 69427]]

each mode of use. Currently S5.5.2(f) requires the overall maximum and
minimum height and weight ranges of the children for whom the CRS is
recommended, which are not broken down by modes of use. The requirement
to parse the height and weight ranges by mode would result in clearer
instructions on when to turn a child forward-facing, so that children
are not turned forward-facing too soon.
To illustrate, instead of stating that a convertible (a CRS that
can be used rear-facing and forward-facing) is for use by children
weighing 5 to 65 lb (2.3 to 29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48 inches
(121.9 centimeters (cm)), the statements or a combination of statements
and pictograms would indicate that the CRS is used rear-facing by
children weighing 5 to 40 lb (2.3 to 18.1 kg) and with heights up to 48
inches (121.9 cm), and forward-facing by children weighing 27 to 65 lb
(12.2 to 29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48 inches (121.9 cm). This
information may be provided in combination with pictograms on labels
already provided on the CRS, as shown in Figure 8. Evenflo and SafeRide
News have requested this amendment in a petition for rulemaking, supra.
NHTSA grants this part of the petition.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.026

ii. Given the need for children to be kept rear-facing at least up
to the age of 1, NHTSA proposes that CRSs may only be recommended for
forward-facing use by children weighing a minimum of 12 kg (26.5 lb).
The 26.5 lb value corresponds to the weight of a 95th percentile 1-
year-old. This provision would apply to CRSs designed to be used only
forward-facing and to CRSs that are designed for use rear-facing for
infants and forward-facing for older children (i.e., the latter
restraints cannot use a ``turnaround weight'' that is less than 12 kg
(26.5 lb)).
The purpose of this provision is to increase the number of children
younger than 1 that are transported rear-facing, because a child under
1 is significantly safer rear-facing than forward-facing in a crash.
FMVSS No. 213 currently sets the minimum weight recommendation for a
child in a forward-facing CRS at 9 kg (20 lb) (S5.5.2(k)(2)), but that
weight is too low to capture a sufficiently full population of children
1-year-old and younger. A 50th percentile 1-year-old weighs 10 kg (22
lb); hence the 9 kg (20 lb) threshold is unsatisfactory because it does
not cover more than half the children under 1 year of age. The change
to 12 kg (26.5 lb) would capture almost all 1-year-olds and would
therefore increase the likelihood that children under 1 will be
transported rear-facing.
Another benefit from the 12 kg (26.5 lb) minimum weight would be to
increase the likelihood that more young toddlers would be transported
rear-facing. Rear-facing CRSs support the infant or toddler's posterior
torso, neck, head, and pelvis and help to distribute crash forces over
the entire body. Developmental considerations, including incomplete
vertebral ossification, more horizontally oriented spinal facet joints,
and excessive ligamentous laxity put young children at risk for head
and spinal cord injury. Rear-facing CRSs address this risk by
supporting the child's head, preventing the relatively large head from
moving independently of the proportionately smaller neck.
Although NHTSA recommends that children 1 to 3 ride in rear-facing
child restraints as long as possible to address the above risks, many
caregivers are not following this recommendation and instead appear to
be following labeling instructions that specify a turnaround weight of
9kg (20 lb).\89\ NCRUSS \90\ data indicate that, among children
weighing less than 9 kg (20 lb), 93 percent were restrained in a rear-
facing CRS, yet among children weighing 9 to 13.1 kg (20 to 29 lb),
only 22 percent were restrained in a rear-facing CRS. The weight of 12
kg (26.5 lb) corresponds to the weight of a 75th percentile 18-month-
old (18MO) and about a 50th percentile 2-year-old. Raising the
turnaround weight to 12 kg (26.5 lb) would help keep a larger
percentage of very young children restrained rear-facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ As noted above, S5.5.2(k)(2) permits a turnaround weight of
9 kg (20 lb). Although NHTSA meant for that weight to be a minimum,
many CRSs use a turnaround weight of only 9kg (20 lb).
\90\ ``Findings of the National Child Restraint Use Special
Study (NCRUSS),'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained in the Appendix to this NPRM, NHTSA estimates 0.7 to
2.3 lives saved and 1.0 to 3.5 moderate to serious injuries prevented
by this amendment.
iii. NHTSA currently recommends that children riding forward-facing
should be restrained in CRSs with internal harnesses (car safety seats)
as long as possible before transitioning to a booster seat. FMVSS No.
213 permits booster seats only to be recommended for children weighing
at least 13.6 kg (30 lb) (S5.5.2(f)). Based on an analysis of field
data and other considerations, NHTSA believes the 13.6 kg (30 lb) value
should be raised. Thirty pounds corresponds to the weight of a 50th
percentile 3-year-old, and to the weight of a 95th percentile 18-month-
old; i.e., children too small to be safely protected in a booster seat.
NHTSA proposes to amend S5.5.2(f) to raise the 13.6 kg (30 lb)
limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb), which is greater than the weight of a 97th
percentile 3-year-old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the weight
of an 85th percentile 4-year-old. NHTSA's field data analyses indicate
risks associated with booster seat use by 3- and 4-year-old
children.\91\ The Agency conducted statistical analyses of field data
(NASS CDS data from 1998-

[[Page 69428]]

2008 and 17 combined years of State data from Kansas, Washington and
Nebraska) to estimate the effect of early graduation from CRSs with an
internal harness (car safety seats) to booster seats. NHTSA found that
among 3- and 4-year-olds, there was as much as a 27 percent increased
risk in non-incapacitating to fatal injury when restrained in booster
seats compared to car safety seats. The analysis indicated that this
effect may be more pronounced for children 3 years old and younger than
for older children. These data indicate a need to keep children in CRSs
with internal harnesses (car safety seats) until after the child turns
4 years old.\92\ NHTSA estimates this change could save 1.2 to 4 lives
and prevent 1.6 to 5.2 moderate to serious injuries. In addition,
NHTSA's proposed side impact test for CRSs would only apply to child
restraints recommended for children weighing less than 18.2 kg (40 lb).
Keeping children in car safety seats longer (until at least a weight of
18.2 kg (40 lb)) would enhance their protection in side impacts as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ ``Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on CDS and
State Data,'' NHTSA Technical Report, DOT HS 811 338, July 2010.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811338.pdf, last accessed on
October 1, 2018.
\92\ A 50th percentile 48-month-old weighs 16.1 kg (35.5 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Labeling of Use Information
The Agency proposes deleting a requirement in S5.5.2(g)(1)(i) that
the use information required by S5.5.2(f) must be in a specific warning
label. The use information would still be on the CRS in a visible
location, but would not have to be part of the ``warning label''
statements. NHTSA tentatively concludes that if S5.5.2(f) is amended as
proposed in this NPRM, the use information that S5.5.2(f) provides will
be clearer to consumers, and there would not be a need to highlight the
information on the specific warning label at issue.
3. Deleting S5.5.2(k)(2)
This NPRM proposes deleting the labeling requirement of
S5.5.2(k)(2), as S5.5.2(k)(2) would duplicate the information of
S5.5.2(f) if the latter were amended as described above. Both
provisions would instruct consumers to use the rear-facing CRS with
children weighing under a specified weight limit.
4. Other Requests of Evenflo and Safe Ride News Petition
Evenflo and Safe Ride News (SRN) request that NHTSA amend
S5.5.2(k)(2) to reference a turnaround age (of 2 years old). The
petitioners refer to the age of 2 based on a then-American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) recommendation that children use rear-facing CRSs up
to at least age 2 or until they reach the highest weight or height of
the particular CRS they are using.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ AAP Updates Recommendation on Car Seats (March 21, 2011),
available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170824075402/https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/aap-updates-recommendation-on-car-seats.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is denying this request. As explained above, the Agency
believes that the label specified by S5.5.2(k)(2) is no longer
necessary given the labeling changes proposed in this NPRM, and has
proposed deleting that statement. Instead, NHTSA is proposing that
manufacturers include statements, or a combination of statements and
pictograms, specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the mass
and height ranges of children who can safely occupy the system in each
applicable mode (i.e., rear-facing, forward-facing, or booster),
subject to NHTSA's amended minimum weight recommendations. NHTSA
believes that the proposed change addresses the concerns of Evenflo and
SRN's relating to caregiver confusion on the wording of the label, as
the requirement to parse the height and weight ranges by mode would
result in clearer instructions on when to turn a child forward-facing,
so that children are not turned forward-facing sooner than recommended.
In addition, the proposed labeling changes align with NHTSA's
recommendation that children under age 1 should always ride in a rear-
facing car seat, and children 1-3 years old ride rear-facing as long as
possible, until they reach the manufacturer-recommended upper height or
weight limit for riding rear-facing in the CRS. As discussed above,
rear-facing CRSs address the risk of head and spinal cord injury for
infants and toddlers, and the longer that these children are
transported rear-facing, the longer they can take advantage of the
posterior torso, neck, head, and pelvis support that a rear-facing CRS
provides.
However, since children of the same age vary by size, NHTSA
declines to refer to a hard age on the CRS label. CRSs are made to
protect the child occupant based on the management of crash forces
based on the child's height and weight, not his or her age. NHTSA's
recommendations aim to provide general guidance to the public on what
CRSs are appropriate to use during specific child age ranges, as an
age-based recommendation is easier for consumers to remember than a
weight-based one. Raising the minimum weight for forward-facing CRSs to
children that weigh a minimum of 12 kg (26.5 lb), while also including
the maximum weight and height for each mode on the label, aligns with
NHTSA's recommendations by ensuring children are almost always kept in
rear-facing seats until they are at least age 1, while also making
clear that children over age 1 who are below the maximum weight and
height for a seat's rear facing mode can remain rear-facing. NHTSA
continues to recommend that children remain in a rear-facing car seat
until he or she reaches the maximum height or weight limit allowed by
the CRS manufacturer.
NHTSA believes that it is also important to note that the AAP has
since updated their 2011 recommendation on car seat use by removing the
specific age 2 milestone.\94\ AAP's 2018 best practice recommendation
is that, ``All infants and toddlers should ride in a rear-facing CRS as
long as possible, until they reach the highest weight or height allowed
by their CRS's manufacturer.'' AAP's 2018 recommendation is aligned
with NHTSA's recommendation. Accordingly, the Agency believes that, for
the CRS label, specifying the appropriate child weight and height
ranges is more accurate to identify the child occupant for whom the CRS
is designed to protect than specifying an age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ Benjamin D. Hoffman, M.D., FAAP, New child passenger safety
seat guidance advises kids to rise rear-facing as long as possible;
drops age criterion (Aug. 30, 2018), https://www.aappublications.org/news/2018/08/30/passengersafety083018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is also denying the petitioners' request to delete a
requirement that the use information include the heights of the
children who can occupy the system safely. The petitioners request that
NHTSA delete this requirement because they believe ``overall child
height is not the most useful measure.'' The petitioners suggest that
consumers be instead directed to ``follow height requirements described
in the owner's manual, up to a maximum of __ inches (__ cm).'' The
petitioners believe that the caregiver can determine whether his or her
child's height is within the maximum for the seat and can be alerted to
important information on height by the CRS owner's manual.
NHTSA denies this request. The Agency does not believe that the
caregiver should be referred to the CRS owner's manual for information
on the height limits for a child to use the restraint safely, because
many consumers do not consult the manual.\95\

[[Page 69429]]

The Agency believes that height information should be permanently
attached to the CRS where it is readily available and easily
accessible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ Findings from NCRUSS (DOT HS 811 679, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142) indicate
that only 66 percent of caregivers consulted the user's manual when
installing a child restraint. There was no specific detail on what
topic in the manual was reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Streamlining NHTSA's Use of ATDs in Compliance Tests To Reflect CRS
Use Today

a. Introduction

To simplify and to make more evaluative NHTSA's compliance testing
of CRSs, this NPRM proposes to streamline how the Agency uses ATDs
(test dummies) to assess CRS performance. Many of these changes would
make the Agency's use of the ATDs more reflective of how CRSs are used
today. The proposed changes are discussed below.
By way of background, child restraint systems must meet FMVSS No.
213's performance requirements when dynamically tested with test
dummies that represent children of various ages. The current dummies
used in compliance testing are the newborn infant, the CRABI-12MO,
HIII-3YO, HIII-6YO or the H2-6YO, and the HIII-10-year-old child dummy.
NHTSA selects which test dummy to use based in part on the height
and weight of the children for whom the manufacturer recommends for the
child restraint (see S7 of FMVSS No. 213). To illustrate, Table 19
below shows which dummies NHTSA uses to test child restraints based on
the height and weight recommendations established for the restraint by
the manufacturer. If a child restraint is recommended for a range of
children whose weight overlaps, in whole or in part, two or more of the
weight ranges in the table, the restraint is subject to testing with
the dummies specified for each of those ranges. Thus, for example, if a
child restraint is recommended for children having weights from 10 kg
to 22.7 kg (22--50 lb), it would be subject to testing with the CRABI-
12MO, the HIII-3YO, and the HIII-6YO or H2-6YO dummies.

Table 19--Current Use of Dummies Based on Manufacturer's Weight Recommendation
[571.213, S7]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs
CRS recommended for use by children of these weights-- (subparts refer to 49 CFR part 572)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight (W) <=5 kg (11 lb), Height (H) <=650 mm (25.5 Newborn (subpart K).
inches).
Weight 5 kg (11 lb) http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Public%20Meetings/SAE/2016/Development%20of%20the%20LODC%20ATD-SAE2016.pdf.

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

[[Page 69431]]

Yet also since 2011, new information indicates NHTSA may not need
to wait longer to use the HIII-6YO solely as the 6YO child ATD in FMVSS
No. 213 compliance tests. While developing this NPRM, NHTSA tested the
HIII-6YO in booster seats and in CRSs with internal harnesses
(``harnessed-CRSs'') on the proposed standard seat assembly and found
that the ATD did not exhibit high head injury measures and high head
acceleration spikes in the dynamic tests. Chin-to-chest contact
occurred at times, but it was a significantly softer contact than the
contact observed in tests on the current seat assembly. On the proposed
seat assembly, the high HIC values and the high head acceleration
spikes that had been measured by the dummy on the current seat assembly
were absent. NHTSA believes this change is due to the firmer seat
cushion on the proposed assembly that prevents the CRS from bottoming
out against the seat frame.
The difference in head accelerations due to the different seat
assemblies is illustrated below. Figure 9 shows the head accelerations
of the HIII-6YO in tests on the current FMVSS No. 213 standard seat
assembly in booster seats (solid lines), and on the proposed standard
seat assembly in booster seats (dashed lines) and in forward-facing
harnessed-CRSs (dotted lines). As shown in the figure, the peak head
accelerations curves of the HIII-6YO in tests with the proposed
standard seat assembly are lower in magnitude than in tests with the
current seat assembly and show the absence of severe head acceleration
spikes.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ Full detail of the sled tests results are discussed in
Section VII of this preamble, supra.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.027

Those data are consistent with other data showing that the HIII-6YO
dummy measures lower peak head acceleration and HIC on the proposed
seat assembly than on the current FMVSS No. 213 assembly. As shown in
Table 20 below, the average peak head acceleration and average HIC of
the HIII-6YO on the proposed standard seat assembly were 52.9 g and
447.4, respectively. The average peak head acceleration and average HIC
of the HIII-6YO dummy in tests conducted on the current FMVSS No. 213
standard seat assembly were 77.6 g and 976.2, respectively. This
amounted to an average peak head acceleration that was 31.8 percent
lower and an average HIC that was 54.2 percent lower when the proposed
standard seat assembly is used versus the current seat assembly. Again,
we attribute the overall change in magnitude in peak head acceleration
to the stiffer seat cushion foam in the proposed standard seat
assembly.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 69432]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.028

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
In short, these data indicate that updating the standard seat
assembly would eradicate the impediments found in the past to using the
HIII-6YO dummy in compliance tests. When CRSs are tested on the
proposed, more realistic standard seat assembly, the HIII-6YO's chin-
to-chest contact is absent or significantly reduced in severity. The
absence of contact or softer chin-to-chest contact results in lower

[[Page 69433]]

HIC scores compared to the HICs from tests of both the HIII-6YO and the
H2-6YO on the current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly. Thus, we believe we
should terminate the optional use of the H2-6YO in compliance tests, as
the primary reason NHTSA permitted continued use of the H2-6YO is no
longer valid.
Another reason is to improve our overall assessment of CRS
performance in the FMVSS No. 213 test. The HIII-6YO dummy is more
biofidelic than the H2-6YO dummy.\107\ The HIII-6YO has been shown to
have good kinematics replicating that of a human in slow speed sled
testing, exhibiting similar head and pelvis excursion as human
children.\108\ Testing CRSs on the updated (proposed) standard seat
assembly in itself would yield dummy kinematics more representative of
the kinematics of restrained children in real world frontal crashes
than current tests, given the proposed seat assembly is specially
designed to represent a current vehicle rear seat. However, having the
HIII-6YO be a part of the test would amplify that realism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ HIII-6YO also has extended instrumentation capability in
many areas, such as in the neck and chest, which would be
advantageous in the event a need should arise to measure the
corresponding risk of injury to children in child restraints.
\108\ Seacrist, T., et al., ``Kinematic Comparison of the Hybrid
III and Q-Series Pediatric ATDs to Pediatric Volunteers in Low-Speed
Frontal Crashes,'' 56th Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine,
October 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Importantly, using the HIII-6YO could improve our assessment of CRS
performance particularly in the significant safety area of head injury.
NASS-CDS data from 1995-2009 show that 39 percent of AIS 2+ injuries to
restrained children in frontal crashes are to the head and face, with
59 percent of these injuries due to contact with the seat and back
support.\109\ Mandatory use of the HIII-6YO in compliance testing could
boost those efforts to address the head injury problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ In a study of 28 cases of children ages 0 to 15 who
sustained AIS 2+ head or face injuries in a frontal crash,
researchers found that the front row seat back and the B-pillar were
the most commonly contacted components. Arbogast, K.B., S. Wozniak,
Locey, C.M., Maltese, M.R., and Zonfrillo, M.R. (2012). Head impact
contact points for restrained child occupants. Traffic Injury
Prevention, 13(2):172-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HIII-6YO dummy yields a more accurate depiction of the
restrained child's head excursion and would help better ensure CRSs are
designed to prevent head impacts. Test data indicate the HIII-6YO
exhibits more head excursion than the older H2-6YO dummy in FMVSS No.
213 tests. Table 21 shows paired sled test data of the HIII-6YO on the
proposed seat assembly and the H2-6YO on the current FMVSS No. 213 seat
assembly, with the dummies restrained in the same or equivalent booster
seat model. Paired T-tests indicated that the measured differences in
HIC and head excursion were significant (p-value <0.01).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.029

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
The average HIC, chest acceleration, and head and knee excursions
are shown in Table 22.

[[Page 69434]]

Table 22--Average HIC, Chest Acceleration, Head Excursion, and Knee Excursion of the HIII-6YO on the Proposed
Seat Assembly and the H2-6YO on the Current Seat Assembly Using the Same Booster Seat Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATD HIC Chest acceleration Head excursion Knee excursion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIII-6YO on proposed seat 288 43 g 537 mm 584 mm
assembly........................
H2-6YO on current seat assembly.. 492 46 g 416 mm 533 mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T-test showed that there was no significant difference (p-value<0.15) between the chest acceleration and knee
excursion measures of the HIII-6YO in the proposed seat assembly and the H2-6YO on the current standard seat
assembly when restrained in the same booster seat model.

NHTSA requests comments on whether using the HIII-6YO and the
updated seat assembly would examine more closely the ability of CRSs to
manage the kinematics of a restrained child in modern vehicles than a
test with the H2-6YO.
NHTSA is also concerned that replacement parts for the ATD are
becoming increasingly more difficult for the agency to procure.
Although NHTSA's crash test dummies are designed to be durable and
capable of withstanding crash testing without unreasonably breaking,
all test dummies need refurbishment and parts replacement from time to
time. As the H2-6YO is not a state-of-the-art dummy, it has become more
difficult for NHTSA to obtain replacement parts for the ATD. The Agency
is concerned that as parts become harder to obtain, NHTSA's inability
to obtain parts will delay and impede its compliance test program.
Ending the optional use of the H2-6YO dummy in compliance testing would
avoid that potential problem.
NHTSA does not believe that terminating the optional use of the H2-
6YO dummy would affect the manufacture of current child restraints
significantly. First, while the head and knee excursions of the HIII-
6YO dummy were greater than those of the H2-6YO, the excursion levels
were well below FMVSS No. 213's excursion limits.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\110\ Since not every CRS on the market was tested, there may be
some that may need some design changes to meet the head excursion
limit when tested with the HIII-6YO on the proposed seat assembly.
However, the design changes would be warranted for child safety, as
using the HIII-6YO better replicates the kinematics of an actual
child than the H2-6YO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, most CRS manufacturers are already using the HIII-6YO dummy
to test some or all of their CRS models. Information from manufacturers
to NHTSA in 2014 showed that 43 percent of CRS manufacturers use the
HIII-6YO to test their CRSs, 21 percent use the H2-6YO and 36 percent
use both dummies for testing their various CRS models. Manufacturers
using both the H2-6YO and HIII-6YO dummies test at least 50 percent of
their models using the HIII-6YO dummy.
For the above reasons, NHTSA is proposing to specify in FMVSS No.
213 that the agency will only use the HIII-6YO and not the H2-6YO
dummy, with provision of sufficient lead time (e.g., 3 years after
publication of a final rule) for the change. Comments are requested on
the issues discussed above.

e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII-3YO Dummy in Rear-Facing CRSs

Because CRSs labeled for use by children in the 10 kg-18.2 kg (22-
40 lb) weight range are often sold to be used rear-facing, we seek to
make more evaluative our compliance testing of these CRSs when so used.
Under current FMVSS No. 213, rear-facing CRSs labeled for use by
children in the 10 kg-18.2 kg (22-40 lb) weight range are subject to
testing with the (33 lb) HIII-3YO test dummy. In the past, testing with
the 3YO dummy rear-facing has been complicated by the dummy's legs
oftentimes getting crammed against the seat back \111\ and the Agency
not knowing how it ought to position the ATD's legs in the compliance
test. In this NPRM, we propose a dummy leg positioning procedure that
calls for placing the ATD's legs up against the seat back and removing
the test dummy's knee joint stops to allow the leg to extend at the
knee in the dynamic test. The procedure is already used by some
commercial test labs and CRS manufacturers to test rear-facing CRSs for
older children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ Positioning the HIII- 3YO dummy in a rear-facing CRSs has
proven difficult in laboratory tests because of the bracing
interaction between the legs of the dummy and the seat which can
change the pre-test set recline angle of the rear-facing CRS and the
pre-test applied lap belt tension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The positioning procedure is based on data analyzing toddler lower
extremity postures when seated in rear-facing CRSs. NHTSA initiated a
research project conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (UMTRI) to identify toddlers' common lower extremity
postures.\112\ UMTRI evaluated 29 subjects ages 18- to 36-months in two
rear-facing conditions (wide and narrow seat).\113\ UMTRI took
anthropometry measures, surface scans and coordinate measures to
evaluate the toddler seating postures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ ``Toddler Lower Extremity Posture in Child Restraint
Systems,'' March 2015, UMTRI-2014-8.
\113\ UMTRI also identified the children's common lower
extremity postures in forward-facing seats (long and short cushion).
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UMTRI found that the most common seating postures for toddlers in
rear-facing restraints are with the child's legs bent and ``relaxed''
with the bottom part of the feet up against the seat back, and with the
child's legs spread and ``feet flat against each other.'' These seating
positions are not achievable by the HIII-3YO dummy due to the dummy's
limited hip range of motion. However, the children also frequently sat
with their legs bent and elevated against the vehicle seat back. The
HIII-3YO's legs are able to achieve this bent and elevated position.
We have tentatively decided to position the HIII-3YO's legs bent
and elevated in rear-facing seats as shown by many of the children in
the UMTRI study. Positioning the ATD's legs this way would replicate a
typical position many children take in a rear-facing CRS. As noted
above, the proposed procedure is already used by some commercial test
labs and CRS manufacturers to test rear-facing CRSs for older children.
As part of the study, UMTRI conducted sled tests to compare the
proposed positioning protocol to those used by Transport Canada in
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 213 and by various
commercial test labs and CRS manufacturers, to assess differences, if
any, in CRS performance and the ease-of-use of the procedures.\114\
UMTRI evaluated the following protocols: (a) Positioning the ATD in an
unaltered state (baseline); \115\ (b) removing knee joint stops to
allow the leg to extend at the knee (NHTSA's proposed procedure); (c)
removing lower leg completely (used by CMVSS

[[Page 69435]]

No. 213); (d) removing lower leg and attaching the shank mass to the
sides or top of thigh (used by CMVSS No. 213); and (e) bending the leg
at the knee. The sled tests were conducted using three convertible
child restraints (Graco Comfort Sport, Cosco Scenera and Cosco Scenera
40RF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ ``Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for Dynamic Testing
of Rear Facing Restraint Systems Designed for Larger Toddlers.''
UMTRI-2014-12. March 2015.
\115\ Experienced bracing between the seat and CRS because of
the legs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test results in Table 23 show that the different seating procedures
had little effect on the response data (HIC, chest acceleration, seat
back rotation) obtained from tests of the three restraints.\116\ Table
23 shows that the coefficient of variation of the different dummy
configurations in three different CRSs was less than 10 percent except
for one that showed an 11 percent CV for HIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ ``Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for Dynamic Testing
of Rear Facing Restraint Systems Designed for Larger Toddlers,''
supra.

Table 23--HIII-3YO Responses in Sled Tests With Different Seating Configurations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max seat back Chest
UMTRI test number (NT12##) CRS Dummy angle HIC acceleration
configuration (degrees) 3 ms clip (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53........................... Cosco Scenera... A-Baseline..... 57 342 39
54........................... Cosco Scenera... B-Kneestop..... 59 293 38
55........................... Cosco Scenera... D-Shank........ 56 296 39
52........................... Cosco Scenera... E-Bent Knee.... 57 334 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................. ................ ............... 57.3 316.3 38.3
Standard Deviation....... ................ ............... 1.3 25.4 1.0
CV....................... ................ ............... 2% 8% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50........................... Cosco Scenera 40 A-Baseline..... 55 383 38
49........................... Cosco Scenera 40 B-Kneestop..... 55 359 40
48........................... Cosco Scenera 40 D-Shank........ 54 361 40
51........................... Cosco Scenera 40 E-Bent......... 55 337 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................. ................ ............... 54.8 360.0 38.8
STD...................... ................ ............... 0.5 18.8 1.5
CV....................... ................ ............... 1% 5% 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41........................... Graco Comfort A-Baseline..... 54 358 41
Sport.
42........................... Graco Comfort B-Kneestop..... 54 350 45
Sport.
45........................... Graco Comfort C--No leg...... 51 364 41
Sport.
46........................... Graco Comfort D-Shank........ 51 436 35
Sport.
44........................... Graco Comfort E-Bent......... 55 334 40
Sport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................. ................ ............... 53 368.4 40.4
STD...................... ................ ............... 1.9 39.4 3.6
CV....................... ................ ............... 4% 11% 9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UMTRI also found that sled testing went more smoothly with some of
the procedures than with others. An unaltered HIII-3YO dummy
installation (baseline) created the most interaction (bracing) between
the dummy's legs and the standard seat assembly. Removing the HIII-3YO
knee joint and bending the legs at the knee (proposed procedure) were
found to be easy to do in the lab and added little time to the testing
process. Removing the HIII-3YO lower legs and attaching them to the
upper leg was not a simple task; the reattached segments were not
sufficiently coupled using tape and it added bulk to the thigh area of
the dummy. We are also concerned that the added bulk of the reattached
segments can create fit issues in narrow CRSs.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ UMTRI also tested a CRABI-18MO by adding mass to the torso
and thigh of the dummy to achieve a 33-35 lb weight. UMTRI found
that while adding mass to the CRABI-18MO dummy was not difficult,
the flexible weights have to be attached around the torso of the
dummy which changes the shape of the dummy and may affect the ATD's
biofidelity. In addition, the CRABI-18MO is not incorporated into 49
CFR part 572. Therefore, the CRABI-18MO was not further considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, more and more CRSs are sold for use rear-facing with
older children. The proposed positioning procedure would facilitate
NHTSA's compliance testing of the CRSs to the requirements of FMVSS No.
213. The procedure involves removing the dummy's knee joint stops to
allow the leg to bend freely at the knee. Removing the knee joint stops
results in a seating posture that toddlers adopt in real life,
minimizes the possibility of bracing between the CRS and the standard
seat assembly, is a task easily accomplished in the test lab and
minimizes changes to the HIII-3YO dummy.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\118\ NHTSA and UMTRI explored making changes to the HIII-3YO
dummy to allow it to achieve the ``relaxed'' and ``feet flat against
each other'' postures shown by toddlers in the study. Efforts
involved reshaping the dummy's thigh flesh and changing the thigh
joint to a ball-and-socket joint to improve the range of motion of
the dummy's hips. However, prototypes showed that making those
changes yielded little improvement in the seating posture and that a
more involved effort would be needed to attain the postures. Since
the test data indicated that different seating procedures had little
effect on the response data, we decided there was not a sufficient
need to pursue modifying the HIII-3YO dummy. ``Toddler Lower
Extremity Posture in Child Restraint Systems,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Table Summarizing Proposed Amendments

Table 24 below illustrates this NPRM's proposed weight categories
discussed above.

[[Page 69436]]

Table 24--Proposed Use of Dummies Based on Manufacturer's Weight and Height Recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS recommended for use by children of these weights Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs
and heights-- (subparts refer to 49 CFR part 572)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight (W) <=5 kg (11 lb), Height (H) <=650 mm (25.5 Newborn (subpart K).
inches).
Weight 5 kg (11 lb) https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14-001678%20IMMI%20STAR%20crs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA proposes amendments to FMVSS No. 213 to make the standard
more design-neutral regarding CRSs that are designed for exclusive use
on school bus seats. To permit restraints for exclusive school bus use
other than harnesses, the proposed amendments would include a new
design-neutral definition for this type of CRS.
NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 so that CRSs manufactured for
exclusive use on school bus seats could be certified using a seat back
mount or a seat back and seat pan mount attachment method.
Specifically, NHTSA proposes to add a definition of ``school bus child
restraint system'' in S4 of FMVSS No. 213 that would define the term as
a child restraint system (including harnesses), sold for exclusive use
on school bus seats, that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b) of
FMVSS No. 213.
NHTSA proposes amending S5.3.1(b) to require school bus CRSs to
bear a permanent warning label, depicted in Figure 12 of FMVSS No. 213,
that is permanently affixed to the part of the harness or strap that
attaches the CRS to a vehicle seat back. This label must be plainly
visible when installed and easily readable, the message area must be
white with black text and no less than 20 square centimeters, and the
pictogram shall be gray and black with a red circle and slash on a
white background and no less than 20 mm in diameter.
NHTSA proposes to amend table S5.1.3.1(a) which specifies the head
and knee excursion requirements. School bus CRSs would be subject to
the current excursion limit requirements for harnesses manufactured for
use on school bus seats when installed using a seat back mount or seat
back and seat pan mounts. Also, NHTSA proposes to amend the table to
S5.3.2 to indicate that school bus CRSs must meet the relevant
requirements of the standard when attached with a seat back mount or
seat back and seat pan mounts.
This NPRM also proposes to amend S5.6.1.11 of FMVSS No. 213 to
require that printed instructions accompanying these school bus CRSs
include the warning statement: ``WARNING! This restraint must only be
used on school bus seats. Entire seat directly behind must be
unoccupied or have restrained occupants.''

[[Page 69437]]

School bus CRSs would not be required to have lower attachments
to install the CRS using the child restraint anchorage system, nor
would they be required to meet performance requirements when tested
using seat belt and lower anchorages attachment methods. School bus
CRSs would not need to have alternative methods of attachments other
than the seat back mount or seat back and seat pan mounts because
school bus seats do not always have seat belts and/or lower
anchorages.

XI. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising From Research Findings

NHTSA requests comment on several developments in child passenger
safety that have arisen in the research context. The Agency would like
commenters' views on how best to approach those developments. The
Agency has docketed a paper that discusses these issues in more detail.
1. NHTSA has reviewed research reports on testing done on certain
kinds of child restraints--CRSs not yet widely available in the U.S--
that raise concerns about a potential unreasonable risk of submarining
\121\ or ejection from these devices in some crash scenarios. The CRSs
in question are inflatable booster seats, and ``shield-type'' child
restraints (shield-only-CRSs) available in markets overseas. Comments
are requested on the findings of the reports.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ ``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.
\122\ Reports documenting vehicle crash tests using inflatable
and shield-type CRSs are available in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Inflatable booster seats: Transport Canada conducted 25-30 mph
frontal impact crash tests of different vehicle models, with the HIII-
6YO and HIII-10YO dummies restrained in 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. Booster seats sold in Canada are required to compress by not
more than 25 mm when subjected to a 2,250 N quasi-static compression
force. Inflatable booster seats cannot meet the requirements of this
quasi-static compression test and so inflatable boosters are not sold
in Canada. Comments are requested on the findings of the research crash
tests conducted in Canada, on the booster seat compression test
requirements in Canada, and on the safety need to have a compression
test in FMVSS No. 213.
(b) 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 CRSs. These 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. NHTSA seeks comment on
the findings of these research tests. Should FMVSS No. 213 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 (S5.4.3.3)?
2. NHTSA requests 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 \123\ show
that some infant carriers marketed as suitable for children up to 13.6
kg (30 lb), which is greater than the weight of a 95th percentile 1 YO
and an average 1.5 YO, cannot ``fit'' the height of a 95th percentile 1
YO or an average 1.5 YO.\124\ NHTSA believes that infant carriers'
height and weight recommendations should better match the children for
whom the CRS is recommended. NHTSA seeks comment on UMTRI's research
findings regarding how current infant carriers fit children that they
are designed for. Should infant carriers' height and weight
recommendations better match up to better accommodate the children for
whom the CRS is recommended?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ 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.
\124\ Field experience indicates that children at the higher end
of growth charts typically outgrow the carriers by height at around
9-10 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 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.\125\ These virtual models are available to the
public to improve the fit of CRSs to children.\126\ NHTSA requests
comments from manufacturers and other parties on whether they used the
models and whether the models were helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ 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.
\126\ Toddler virtual models available for download at: http://childshape.org/toddler/manikins/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Proposed Lead Time

This NPRM proposes that the compliance date for most of the
amendments in this rulemaking action would be three years following the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, with
optional early compliance permitted (exceptions are discussed below).
NHTSA tentatively believes that a 3-year period is in the public
interest because CRS manufacturers would need to gain familiarity with
the new standard seat assembly and new test protocols, and would need
time to assess their products' conformance to the new FMVSS No. 213
test requirements. They would need time to implement design and
production changes as needed. A 3-year lead time also aligns with the
typical design cycle of child restraints.
Exceptions to the proposed 3-year compliance date would be as
follows. NHTSA proposes a 180-day compliance date for the proposed
changes to registration card requirements and the proposed changes to
permit school bus child restraint systems (early optional compliance
would be permitted). A 1-year compliance date is proposed for labeling
requirement changes (early optional compliance would be permitted).
NHTSA would like to implement these changes as early as possible to
attain the safety benefits they can achieve. The proposed time should
provide enough time to change the card and labels. The proposed 180-day
compliance date would be sufficient for school bus CRSs since the
proposed amendment would remove a restriction on the manufacture of
such products.

XIII. Corrections and Other Minor Amendments

This NPRM proposes a few housekeeping and other amendments to the
text of FMVSS No. 213.

a. Correct Reference

The Agency would amend S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) of FMVSS No. 213 by
correcting a reference to ``S5.5.2(l)(3)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii).'' The
reference would be corrected to refer to ``S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B), or
(C).''

[[Page 69438]]

b. Section 5.1.2.2

The Agency is removing and reserving S5.1.2.2 because it applies to
CRSs manufactured before August 1, 2005 and so is no longer applicable.

c. Table to S5.1.3.1(a) and Test Configuration II

The Agency is correcting the table to S5.1.3.1(a), which specifies
performance criteria and test conditions for FMVSS No. 213's occupant
excursion requirements for add-on forward-facing CRSs. When NHTSA
created the table the agency inadvertently did not include a reference
to Test Configuration II of FMVSS No. 213.\127\ NHTSA seeks to correct
this oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\127\ NHTSA adopted the table into FMVSS No. 213 in a March 5,
1999 final rule establishing the requirements for child restraint
anchorage systems for vehicles and corresponding requirements for
CRSs (64 FR 10786).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Configuration II is a 32 km/h (20 mph) ``misuse'' test that
applies to CRSs that are ``equipped with a fixed or movable surface
described in S5.2.2.2.'' \128\ (S6.1.2(a)(2).) \129\ In Test
Configuration II, NHTSA tests those types of CRSs without attaching
``any of the child restraint belts unless they are an integral part of
the fixed or movable surface.'' \130\ In addition, the child restraint
is untethered (S6.1.2(a)(2)(i)). The tested child restraint must meet
all the dynamic performance requirements of the standard, not just
excursion requirements, when tested in this manner.\131\ Test
Configuration II is intended to address the possibility that the
restraint's internal belt system will be misused or not used at all by
the caregiver. If this happens, Test Configuration II ensures that the
restraint will offer some minimal protection even when the CRS is not
properly used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\128\ S5.2.2.2 states that each forward-facing child restraint
system shall have no fixed or movable surface: (a) directly forward
of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal line, parallel to the
seat orientation reference line (term defined in S4 of FMVSS No.
213), in the case of the add-on child restraint system, or parallel
to a vertical plane through the longitudinal center line of the
vehicle seat, in the case of a built-in child restraint system, and
(b) passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces
which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance
with S6.1.2(a)(2), so that the child restraint system shall conform
to the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.
\129\ S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) and (ii) also state that Test
Configuration II applies to ``backless child restraint system[s]
with a top anchorage strap'' and to a ``built-in booster seat with a
top anchorage strap.'' NHTSA is proposing to remove references in
FMVSS No. 213 to those CRSs because such restraints are no longer or
have never been produced.
\130\ See FMVSS No. 213 S10.2.1(b)(2) and S10.2.2(c)(2).
\131\ The CRSs must also meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213
when tested to Test Configuration I's 48 km/h (30 mph) tests. The
CRSs' internal belts are attached in Test Configuration I but the
top tether cannot be attached to meet FMVSS No. 213's head excursion
limit of 813 mm (32 inches) and the other dynamic performance
requirements in S5.1 of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Updating Reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1

Current specifications of the test device for built-in child
restraints in FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and
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.'' SAE Recommended Practice J211 has
been revised several times since June 1980 and most test facilities are
currently using newer versions of the document. FMVSS No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection,'' currently refers to the document as SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1 (March 1995). The 1995 version of SAE J211/
1 is consistent with the current requirements for instrumentation and
data processing in FMVSS No. 213. Using the same Recommended Practice
J211/1 (1995) in S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G) would
update the FMVSS No. 213 provisions and facilitate the processing of
test results when combining a test of built-in child restraints with an
FMVSS No. 208 test. Therefore, NHTSA proposes updating the reference to
SAE Recommended Practice J211(1980) in sections S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and
S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G) to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995).\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\132\ NHTSA would also reference the updated SAE J211/1 in the
compliance test procedure proposed for FMVSS No. 213a's side impact
test. See 79 FR at 4603, S6.1.2(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and DOT Rulemaking Procedures
The Agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
administrative rulemaking procedures set forth in 49 CFR part 5,
subpart B. This rulemaking is not considered significant and was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
Estimated Benefits and Costs
The NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 by (a) updating the
standard seat assembly to represent better the rear seating environment
in the current vehicle fleet, (b) amending several labeling and owner
information requirements to improve communication with today's CRS
owners and to align with current best practices for child passenger
safety, and (c) amending how NHTSA uses ATDs to make the Agency's
compliance tests more evaluative of CRS performance. The proposal would
provide some safety benefits with, at most, minimal incremental costs.
Updated Sled Assembly
The proposed updates to the sled test would better align the
performance of CRSs in compliance tests to that in real world crashes.
NHTSA tested 24 CRS models representing the market of infant
carrier, convertible, all-in-one, and booster type CRSs on the proposed
standard seat assembly with the appropriate size dummies. All but one
forward-facing CRS models met the current and proposed performance
requirements. The Diono Radian tested with the HIII-10YO dummy met all
performance requirements except for the head excursion limit in the
untethered condition. Based on these data, the Agency believes that
only a few CRSs may need minor redesign to meet the requirements in the
proposed standard seat assembly (V2).\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\133\ Preliminary tests with the proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA believes that a lead time of three years is sufficient for
the redesign. The Agency has not estimated a cost of this redesign,
assuming 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.
There would be costs involved in changing the standard seat
assembly used by NHTSA to assess CRS compliance. Manufacturers are not
required to use the standard seat assembly, but as a practical matter
they usually choose to do so, to test their CRSs as similarly to the
tests conducted by NHTSA. The one-time cost of the updated standard
seat assembly sled

[[Page 69439]]

buck is about $8,000. 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 each manufacturer.
Labeling and Owner Registration
The Agency believes that the proposed updates to the labeling
requirements would benefit safety by reducing the premature graduation
of children from rear-facing CRSs to forward-facing CRSs, and from
forward-facing CRSs to booster seats. The Agency estimates 1.9 to 6.3
lives would be saved and 2.6 to 8.7 moderate-to-critical severity
injuries would be prevented annually by aligning FMVSS No. 213's use
instructions with current best practices on transporting children.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\134\ Details of the benefits analysis are provided in the
Appendix to this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed changes to the labeling requirements would have
minimal or no cost impacts, as mostly they are deregulatory.
Manufacturers would be given 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
the recommended child weight and height ranges for the use of CRSs in a
specific installation mode on existing voluntary labels by simply
changing the minimum child weight limit values. Since no additional
information would be required on the labels by this NPRM, the size of
the label would not need to be increased. Thus, there would be minimal
or no additional cost for the label. There would also be no decrease in
sales of forward-facing car safety seats or of booster seats as a
result of the proposal 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 would only
affect how consumers use the products and not the sale of them. For
example, consumers would still purchase forward-facing car safety seats
but would wait to use them forward-facing until the child is at least
1. They would still purchase convertible CRSs, but will delay turning
the child forward-facing until the child is at least 1. Consumers would
still purchase booster seats, but would use them only from when the
child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb).
The proposed changes to the registration program generally lessen
restrictions and are optional for manufacturers to implement. These
proposed changes to the registration card would provide flexibility to
manufacturers in how they communicate with consumers and would likely
help improve registration rates and recall completion rates. NHTSA
cannot quantify the benefits at this time.
NHTSA estimates there would be no costs associated with the
proposed changes. While the changes could affect the collection of
information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (which is discussed
later in this section), there would be no additional material cost
associated with the proposed changes to the registration card or to the
CRS label or owner manual pertaining to registration. Manufacturers
could use the same card and labels and just change the wording on them.
ATDs
The proposed updates of how ATDs are used in the sled test for
assessing CRS performance better accords 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 proposed changes lessen testing burdens by reducing the
extent of testing with ATDs. For example, the NPRM proposes that CRSs
for children weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) would no longer be
subject to testing with the HIII-3YO dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction
in testing cost of $540,000 for the current number of infant carrier
models in the market.\135\ Also, CRSs for children weighing 13.6-18.2
kg (30-40 lb) would no longer be tested 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 would still be
subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO in that regard. The proposed
positioning procedure for the legs of the HIII-3YO dummy in rear-facing
CRSs is unlikely to have cost implications because the procedure is the
same as that currently used by manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ There are currently 45 infant carrier models with
recommended upper weight limit exceeding 10 kg (22 lb). Each rear-
facing CRS is tested in three different configurations on the
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 $4,000. Therefore, the cost savings by not testing the
45 infant carrier models using the HIII-3YO dummy is estimated to be
$540,000 (= $4,000 x 3 x 45). 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 $540,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, NHTSA believes that testing CRSs solely with the HIII-
6YO rather than the H2-6YO dummy would not have significant cost
implications. This is because there would be little or no design
changes needed for the CRSs due to this proposed update since nearly
all the CRSs tested with the HIII-6YO in the proposed standard seat
assembly complied with all the FMVSS No. 213 requirements.\136\ 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 in the proposed standard
seat assembly. In addition, manufacturers are increasingly certifying
at least some of their CRS models for older children using the HIII-6YO
dummy rather than the H2-6YO and so most manufacturers already have
access to the HIII-6YO dummy and would not need to purchase the dummy
as a result of this proposed update. 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, there would not be a cost
increase to purchase and test with the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\136\ Of 21 tests with the HIII-6YO in the proposed 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
proposed updates to ATD selection for the sled test because most CRSs
would need minor or no modifications as a result of the proposed
updates. Further, a 3-year time frame aligns with the typical design
cycle for CRSs. The Agency notes also that manufacturers have the
option of not changing CRS designs in some instances, and may instead
change the weight of the children for whom the CRS is recommended.
Narrowing the population of children for whom the CRS is recommended
could result in reducing the number of ATDs NHTSA and manufacturers use
in compliance and certification tests, respectively.
School Bus Child Restraint Systems
The proposed changes to include in FMVSS No. 213 a new type of CRS

[[Page 69440]]

manufactured for exclusive use on school bus seats would allow the sale
of these products. The Agency estimates there would be no cost impacts
associated with the proposed changes because the amendment would permit
more products to be sold for school bus use. The benefits of the
proposed changes are associated with the popularity of such CRSs in the
pupil transportation industry for transporting preschool and special-
needs children. However, NHTSA cannot quantify these benefits at this
time.
Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an
executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule
under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the
offset requirements of 13771.
This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action because NHTSA believes it would reduce the cost of complying
with NHTSA's requirements. The proposed rule would amend FMVSS No. 213
to update the standard seat assembly and reduce costs by eliminating
unnecessary or outdated requirements, such as unnecessary testing of
infant carriers with the 3YO dummy. The proposal to eliminate
unnecessary testing with the 3YO test dummy would result in a reduction
in testing costs of $540,000 for the current number of infant carrier
models in the market. Removing the restrictions in the owner
registration program will enable manufacturers to interact with
consumers using modern methods of communication, which should encourage
design innovation and productivity. Proposals to update labels and
owners' manuals would not increase costs, as manufacturers would be
replacing current labels and manuals with updated versions. NHTSA
estimates that virtually all CRSs made in the U.S. would meet FMVSS No.
213's performance requirements on the proposed seat assembly.
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 proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA
estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of
which are small businesses. Even if there were a small CRS
manufacturer, the impacts of this proposed rule would 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 proposed requirements, but the changes are minor and
would entail switching out values on current labels.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed 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 this proposed 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 proposed rule would 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 Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed 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

[[Page 69441]]

and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed
rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, would
prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule would preempt State tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by this proposed rule. Establishment of a higher
standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum
standard proposed 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 proposed 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 dvancement 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 agencies 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 proposed in
this NPRM, other than the minor proposal 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 test child restraints dynamically
and found areas of common ground.\137\ 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 proposes a
requirement to test CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts, which is
consistent with CMVSS No. 213. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the
provisions would increase CRS safety, and would promote harmonization
of our countries' regulatory approaches in testing CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\137\ 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 NPRM would 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
NPRM 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 requests public comment on the ``regulatory approaches taken
by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter 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
tentatively agrees with the merits of the CMVSS No. 213 provision.
Comments are requested on the above policy statement and the
implications it has for this rulemaking.
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to NHTSA
with your views.
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 proposed 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 proposal.
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

[[Page 69442]]

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,\138\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ 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 NPRM, the Agency is proposing to amend the requirements
that prescribe wording advising the consumer of the importance of
registering and instructing how to register. NHTSA proposes to stop
prescribing the wording. Instead, CRS manufacturers would be given
leeway to use their own words to convey the importance of registering
the CRS and to instruct how registration is achieved. NHTSA would 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 also proposes to permit or
possibly require a statement that the information collected through the
registration process will not be used by the manufacturer for any
purpose other than contacting the consumer in the event of a recall.
The Agency also proposes to remove restrictions on manufacturers on
their use of size, font, color, layout, and attachment method of the
information card portion. NHTSA proposes to continue a current
provision that prohibits any other information unrelated to the
registration of the CRS, such as advertising or warranty information.
If the proposed changes to the information card are adopted, NHTSA
anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated with the
revised information card, labels and owner's manuals. Child restraint
manufacturers produce, on average, a total of approximately 15,000,000
child restraints per year. NHTSA estimates there are 29 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 instruction manual. NHTSA assumes
for purposes of this NPRM analysis that each manufacturer would design
the registration information on the information card, label and manuals
5 times per year, whether it is to use different registration cards
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 manuals that no longer have
prescribed text (50 hours x 5 designs/year x 29 CRS manufacturers =
7,250 hours annually).
Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 7,250 hours.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed 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: 202-493-2251.
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

[[Page 69443]]

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).
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 proposed rule. Please inform the agency if you
can suggest how NHTSA can improve its use of plain language.
Incorporation by Reference
In updating the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213
frontal test, NHTSA would incorporate by reference a drawing package
titled, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-
2019,'' dated May 2019, into FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). The
drawing package consists of detailed drawings of and other materials
related to the proposed standard seat assembly. 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 NPRM. Interested parties can download a copy of the drawing
package or view the materials on line by accessing www.Regulations.gov.
We also will place a copy of the drawing package in the docket of the
final rule that incorporates the new standard seat assembly into FMVSS
No. 213.
This NPRM also proposes to change an incorporation by reference of
SAE Recommended Practice J211, ``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,''
revised 1980, to a 1995 version of J211 (J211/1). SAE J211/1, Revised
March 1995, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic
Instrumentation,'' provides guidelines and recommendations for
techniques of measurement with electronic instrumentation used in
impact tests. These include a series of performance recommendations for
data channels, guidelines for selecting a frequency response class for
electronic instrumentation, and guidelines on sign convention and
digital data processing. The Director of the Federal Register has
already approved the incorporation by reference of SAE Recommended
Practice J211/1 (1995) into 49 CFR part 571 (see 49 CFR 571.5(l)(4)).
Interested parties can obtain a copy of the SAE Recommended Practice
J211/1 (March 1995) ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation,'' from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Telephone: (724) 776-4841, website:
www.sae.org.

XV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket,
please include the Docket Number in your comments.
Your comments must be written and in English. Your comments must
not be more than 15 pages long. NHTSA established this limit to
encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion.
However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your
comments, and there is no limit on the length of the attachments.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and
copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must meet the
information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality
Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, please remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and
substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions you make and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency, make
sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in the
DATES section above.
For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, see
https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf.

How can I be sure my comments were received?

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you

[[Page 69444]]

should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential business information, to the
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit a copy from which
you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the
docket. When you send a comment 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.)

Will the Agency consider late comments?

NHTSA will consider all comments that the docket receives before
the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider comments that
the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment
too late for the agency to consider it in developing a final rule,
NHTSA will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the
internet (http://regulations.gov).
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.
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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding and reserving paragraphs (k)(5)
through (8), adding paragraph (k)(9), and revising paragraph (l)(4), to
read as follows:

Sec. 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
(k) * * *
(5) [Reserved.]
(6) [Reserved.]
(7) [Reserved.]
(8) [Reserved.]
(9) Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213,
No. NHTSA-213-2019,'' (consisting of drawings and a bill of materials),
May 2019, into Sec. 571.213.
(l) * * *
(4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1, revised March 1995,
``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation''
into Sec. Sec. 571.202a; 571.208; 571.213; 571.213a 571.218; 571.403.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 571.213 is amended by--
0
Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of ``school bus child
restraint system'' to S4;
0
Removing and reserving S5.1.2.2;
0
Revising S5.1.3.1(a);
0
Revising S5.3.1(b);
0
Revising S5.3.2;
0
Revising the introductory text of S5.5.2;
0
Revising S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i), removing and reserving
S5.5.2(k)(2);
0
Removing and reserving S5.5.2(l)(2), revising S5.5.2(l)(3)(i);
0
Revising S5.5.2(m), S5.5.5(f), S5.5.5(k), S5.6.1.7, S5.6.1.11,
S5.6.2.2, S5.8.1, S5.8.2, and S5.9(a);
0
Adding S6.1.1(a)(1)(i) and revising S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii);
0
Revising S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G);
0
Removing and reserving S6.1.1(c);
0
Revising S6.1.2(a), S6.1.2(a)(1) and S6.1.2(a)(2) and S6.2(d)(1)(ii);
0
Adding S7.1.1;
0
Revising the introductory paragraph to S7.1.2;
0
Revising S7.1.3, and,
0
Adding S10.2.2(e), and Figures 1D, 1D', 1E, 1E', 9c and 9d.
The revised and added text and figures read as follows:

Sec. 571.213 Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
S4. Definitions * * *
School bus child restraint system means a child restraint system
(including a harness) manufactured and sold only for use on school bus
seats, that has a label conforming with S5.3.1(b).
* * * * *
S5.1.2.2 [Reserved]
* * * * *
S5.1.3.1 * * *
(a)(1) For each add-on child restraint system manufactured before
[date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]--
(i) No portion of the test dummy's head shall pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 mm (as specified in
table 2 to this S5.1.3.1(a)) forward of point Z on the Standard Seat
Assembly No. NHTSA-213-2003, measured along the center SORL (as
illustrated in figure 1B of this standard); and
(ii) Neither knee pivot point shall pass through a vertical
transverse plane that is 915 mm forward of point Z on the Standard Seat
Assembly No. NHTSA-213-2003, measured along the center SORL. * * *
(2) For each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after
[date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]--
(i) No portion of the test dummy's head shall pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 mm (as specified in
table 3 to this S5.1.3.1(a)) forward of point Z on the Standard Seat
Assembly No. NHTSA-213-2019, measured along the center SORL (as
illustrated in figure 1D of this standard); and
(ii) Neither knee pivot point shall pass through a vertical
transverse plane that is 915 mm forward of point Z on the Standard Seat
Assembly No. NHTSA-213-2019, measured along the center SORL.

[[Page 69445]]

Table 2 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Forward-Facing Child Restraints Manufactured Before
[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: in the
test specified in 2nd
column, the child
When this type of child Is tested in accordance These excursion restraint is attached to
restraint with-- limits apply the test seat assembly in
the manner described
below, subject to certain
conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses, backless booster seats S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap belt;
and restraints designed for use 915 mm. in addition, if a tether
by physically handicapped is provided, it is
children. attached.
School bus child restraint S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with seat back
systems. 915 mm. mount, or seat back and
seat pan mounts.
Belt-positioning seats........... S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii)............ Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap and
915 mm. shoulder belt; no tether
is attached.
Child restraints other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B).......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap belt;
harnesses, backless booster S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D).......... 915 mm. no tether is attached.
seats, restraints designed for ............................ Head 813 mm; Knee Attached to lower
use by physically handicapped ............................ 915 mm. anchorages of child
children, school bus child ............................ .................... restraint anchorage
restraint systems, and belt- S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).......... .................... system; no tether is
positioning seats. ............................ .................... attached.
Head 720 mm; Knee Attached with lap belt;
915 mm. in addition, if a tether
.................... is provided, it is
attached.
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C).......... Head 720 mm; Knee Attached to lower
915 mm. anchorages of child
restraint anchorage
system; in addition, if
a tether is provided, it
is attached.
Child restraints equipped with a S6.1.2(a)(2)(i)............. Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap belt or
fixed or movable surface 915 mm. lower anchorages of
described in S5.2.2.2 that has child restraint
belts that are not an integral anchorage system; no
part of that fixed or movable tether is attached.
surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 to S5.1.3.1(a)--Add-On Forward-Facing Child Restraints Manufactured On or After
[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: in the
test specified in 2nd
column, the child
When this type of child Is tested in accordance These excursion restraint is attached to
restraint with-- limits apply the test seat assembly in
the manner described
below, subject to certain
conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses and restraints designed S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A)......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap and
for use by physically 915 mm.. shoulder belt; in
handicapped children. addition, if a tether is
provided, it is
attached.
School bus child restraint S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A)......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with seat back
systems. 915 mm. mount, or seat back and
seat pan mounts.
Booster seats.................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(B)......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap and
915 mm. shoulder belt; no tether
is attached.
Child restraints other than S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(B)......... Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap and
harnesses, restraints designed S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(D)......... 915 mm. shoulder belt; no tether
for use by physically ............................ Head 813 mm; Knee is attached.
handicapped children, school bus S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A)......... 915 mm. Attached to lower
child restraint systems, and ............................ .................... anchorages of child
booster seats. S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(C)......... Head 720 mm; Knee restraint anchorage
............................ 915 mm. system; no tether is
............................ .................... attached.
Head 720 mm; Knee Attached with lap and
915 mm. shoulder belt; in
.................... addition, if a tether is
.................... provided, it is
attached.
Attached to lower
anchorages of child
restraint anchorage
system; in addition, if
a tether is provided, it
is attached.
Child restraints equipped with a S6.1.2(a)(2)(i)............. Head 813 mm; Knee Attached with lap and
fixed or movable surface 915 mm. shoulder belt or lower
described in S5.2.2.2 that has anchorages of child
belts that are not an integral restraint anchorage
part of that fixed or movable system; no tether is
surface. attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
S5.3.1 * * *
(b) School bus child restraint systems must have a label, that
conforms in content to Figure 12 and to the requirements of
S5.3.1(b)(1) through S5.3.1(b)(3) of this standard, and that is
permanently affixed to the part of the school bus child restraint
system that attaches the system to a vehicle seat back.
(1) The label must be plainly visible when installed and easily
readable.
(2) The message area must be white with black text. The message
area must be no less than 20 square centimeters.
(3) The pictogram shall be gray and black with a red circle and
slash on a white background. The pictogram shall be no less than 20 mm
in diameter.
S5.3.2 Each add-on child restraint system manufactured before [
date 3 years after date of publication of final rule] and each add-on
child restraint

[[Page 69446]]

system manufactured on or after [date 3 years after date of publication
of final rule] shall be capable of meeting the requirements of this
standard when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the
following tables 5 and 6, respectively, for the particular type of
child restraint system:

Table 5 to S5.3.2 Means of installation for child restraints manufactured before
[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 1 seat belt
Type 1 assembly plus a Child restraint Type 2 seat Seat back mount,
Type of add-on child restraint system seat belt tether anchorage, anchorage system belt assembly or seat back and
assembly if needed seat pan mounts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus child restraint systems............................ .......... ................... .................. ............... X
Other harnesses............................................... .......... X .................. ............... ..................
Car beds...................................................... X ................... .................. ............... ..................
Rear-facing restraints........................................ X ................... X ............... ..................
Belt-positioning seats........................................ .......... ................... .................. X ..................
All other child restraints.................................... X X X ............... ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6 to S5.3.2 Means of installation for child restraints manufactured on or after
[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 2 seat belt
Type of add-on child restraint assembly plus a Child restraint Type 2 seat Seat back mount,
system tether anchorage, anchorage system belt assembly or seat back and
if needed seat pan mounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus child restraint systems ................... .................. ............... X
Other harnesses................... X .................. ............... ..................
Car beds.......................... ................... .................. X ..................
Rear-facing restraints............ ................... X X ..................
Booster seats..................... ................... .................. X ..................
All other child restraints........ X X X ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
S5.5.2 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) and
paragraphs (g) through (m) of this section shall be stated in the
English language and in letters and numbers that are not smaller than
10 point type. Unless otherwise specified, the information shall be
labeled on a white background with black text. Unless written in all
capitals, the information shall be stated in sentence capitalization.
* * * * *
(f) Statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
specifying the manufacturer's recommendations for the mass and height
ranges of children who can safely occupy the system in each applicable
mode (rear-facing, forward-facing, booster), except manufacturers shall
not recommend forward-facing child restraint systems with internal
harnesses for children of masses less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and shall
not recommend booster seats for children of masses less than 18.4 kg
(40 lb). For seats that can only be used as belt-positioning seats,
manufacturers must include the maximum and minimum recommended height,
but may delete the reference to maximum weight.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) As appropriate, the statements required by the following
sections will be bulleted and placed after the statement required by
5.5.2(g)(1) in the following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h), 5.5.2(j),
and 5.5.2(i).
* * * * *
(k)(1) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
(3) * * *
(i) If the child restraint is designed to meet the requirements of
this standard when installed by the child restraint anchorage system
according to S5.3.2, and if the sum of the weight of the child
restraint and the maximum child weight recommended for the child
restraint when used with the restraint's internal harness or components
is greater than 65 lb when used forward-facing or rear-facing, include
the following statement on this installation diagram: ``Do not install
by this method for a child weighing more than *.'' At the
manufacturer's option, ``*'' is the child weight limit in English units
in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B) or (C). The corresponding
child weight limit in metric units may also be included in the
statement at the manufacturer's option.
* * * * *
(m) Statements informing the owner of the importance of registering
the child restraint for recall purposes and instructing the owner how
to register the child restraint at least by mail and by telephone,
providing a U.S. telephone number. The following statement must also be
provided: ``For recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle
Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to
www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.5.5 * * *
(f) The same statement(s) provided under S5.5.2(f).
* * * * *
(k) Statements informing the owner of the importance of registering
the child restraint for recall purposes and instructing the owner how
to register the child restraint at least by mail and by telephone,
providing a U.S. telephone number. The following statement must also be
provided: ``For recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle
Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to
www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *

[[Page 69447]]

S5.6.1.7 Statements informing the owner of the importance of
registering the child restraint for recall purposes and instructing the
owner how to register the child restraint at least by mail and by
telephone, providing a U.S. telephone number. The following statement
must also be provided: ``For recall information, call the U.S.
Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-
9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.6.1.11 For school bus child restraint systems, the instructions
must include the following statement:
``WARNING! This restraint must only be used on school bus seats.
Entire seat directly behind must be unoccupied or have restrained
occupants.'' (The instruction's reference to a ``restrained occupant''
refers to an occupant restrained by any user-appropriate vehicle
restraint or child restraint system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder
belt, booster seat or other child restraint system.)
* * * * *
S5.6.2.2 The instructions for each built-in child restraint system
other than a factory-installed restraint shall include statements
informing the owner of the importance of registering the child
restraint for recall purposes and instructing the owner how to register
the child restraint at least by mail and by telephone, providing a U.S.
telephone number. The following statement must also be provided: ``For
recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline
at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.''
* * * * *
S5.8.1 Attached registration form.
(a) Each child restraint system, except a factory-installed built-
in restraint system, shall have a registration form attached to any
surface of the restraint that contacts the dummy when the dummy is
positioned in the system in accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213. The
form shall not have advertising or any information other than that
related to registering the child restraint system.
(b) Each attached form shall provide a mail-in postcard that
conforms in size, and in basic content and format to the forms depicted
in Figures 9c and 9d of this section.
(1) The mail-in postcard shall:
(i) Have a thickness of at least 0.007 inches and not more than
0.0095 inches;
(ii) Be pre-printed with the information identifying the child
restraint for recall purposes, such as the model name or number and
date of manufacture (month, year) of the child restraint system to
which the form is attached;
(iii) Contain space for the owner to record his or her name,
mailing address, email address, and other pertinent information; and
(iv) Be addressed to the manufacturer, and be postage paid.
(c) The registration form attached to the child restraint shall
also provide information:
(1) Informing the owner of the importance of registering the child
restraint; and,
(2) Instructing the owner how to register the CRS.
(3) Manufacturers must provide statements informing the purchaser
that the registration card is pre-addressed and that postage has been
paid.
(4) Manufacturers may provide instructions to register the child
restraint electronically. If an electronic registration form is used,
it must meet the requirements of S5.8.2 of this section.
(5) Manufacturers must provide statements to the owner explaining
that the registration card is not a warranty card, and that the
information collected from the owner will not be used for marketing
purposes.
S5.8.2 Electronic registration form.
(a) Each electronic registration form must meet the requirements of
this S5.8.2. Each form shall:
(1) Contain statements at the top of the form:
(i) Informing the owner of the importance of registering the CRS;
and,
(ii) Instructing the owner how to register the CRS.
(2) Provide as required registration fields, space for the
purchaser to record the model name or number and date of manufacture
(month, year) of the child restraint system, and space for the
purchaser to record his or her name and mailing address. At the
manufacturer's option, a space is provided for the purchaser to record
his or her email address.
(b) No advertising information shall appear on the electronic
registration form.
(c) The electronic registration form may provide information
identifying the manufacturer or a link to the manufacturer's home page,
a field to confirm submission, and a prompt to indicate any incomplete
or invalid fields prior to submission.
(d) If a manufacturer printed the electronic address (in form of a
website or code) on the attached registration form provided pursuant to
S5.8.1, the electronic registration form shall be accessed directly by
the electronic address. Accessing the electronic address (in form of a
website or code) that contains the electronic registration form shall
not cause additional screens or electronic banners to appear.
S5.9 * * *
(a)(1) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured before [
date 3 years after publication date of final rule], other than a car
bed, harness, school bus child restraint system, and belt-positioning
seat, shall have components permanently attached that enable the
restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (Sec.
571.225) and depicted in Drawing Package SAS-100-1000, Standard Seat
Belt Assembly with Addendum A or in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard
Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2003'' (both incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 571.5). The connectors must be attached to the
add-on child restraint by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver. In the
case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the
base is required to have the components. [NHTSA notes: inclusion of the
following text was proposed by a January 23, 2015 NPRM, 80 FR 3744,
3775. ``The connectors designed to attach the add-on child restraint to
the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system shall be
permanently marked with the pictogram in Figure 15. The pictogram is
not less than 9 mm in diameter.'']
(2) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after [
date 3 years after publication date of final rule], other than a car
bed, harness, school bus child restraint system and belt-positioning
seat, shall have components permanently attached that enable the
restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (Sec.
571.225) and depicted in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat
Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2019'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 571.5). The connectors must be attached to the
add-on child restraint by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver. In the
case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the
base is required to have the components. [NHTSA notes: inclusion of the
following text would be consistent with a January 23, 2015 NPRM, 80 FR
at 3775. ``The connectors designed to attach the add-on child restraint
to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system shall
be permanently marked with the pictogram in Figure 15.

[[Page 69448]]

The pictogram is not less than 9 mm in diameter.'']
* * * * *
S6.1.1 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The test device for add-on restraint systems manufactured
before date 3 years after publication date of final rule] is a standard
seat assembly consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat, with three
seating positions, which is depicted in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA
Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2003,''
(consisting of drawings and a bill of materials) dated June 3, 2003
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5). The assembly is mounted
on a dynamic test platform so that the center SORL of the seat is
parallel to the direction of the test platform travel and so that
movement between the base of the assembly and the platform is
prevented. As illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B of this standard,
attached to the seat belt anchorage points provided on the standard
seat assembly are Type 1 seat belt assemblies in the case of add-on
child restraint systems other than belt-positioning seats, or Type 2
seat belt assemblies in the case of belt-positioning seats. These seat
belt assemblies meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (Sec.
571.209) and have webbing with a width of not more than 2 inches, and
are attached to the anchorage points without the use of retractors or
reels of any kind. As illustrated in Figures 1A' and 1B' of this
standard, attached to the standard seat assembly is a child restraint
anchorage system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225
(Sec. 571.225).
(ii) The test device for add-on restraint systems manufactured on
or after [ date 3 years after publication date of final rule] is a
standard seat assembly consisting of a simulated vehicle rear seat
which is depicted in Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly;
FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA-213-2019,'' (consisting of drawings and a bill
of materials) dated May 2019 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
571.5). The assembly is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the
center SORL of the seat is parallel to the direction of the test
platform travel and so that movement between the base of the assembly
and the platform is prevented. As illustrated in Figures 1D and 1E of
this standard, attached to the seat belt anchorage points provided on
the standard seat assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly. The seat
belt assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 209 (Sec.
571.209) and has webbing with a width of not more than 2 inches, and
are attached to the anchorage points without the use of retractors or
reels of any kind. As illustrated in Figures 1D' and 1E' of this
standard, attached to the standard seat assembly is a child restraint
anchorage system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225
(Sec. 571.225).
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The platform is instrumented with an accelerometer and data
processing system having a frequency response of 60 Hz channel
frequency class as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995),
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests,'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 571.5). The accelerometer sensitive axis is parallel to the
direction of test platform travel.
(ii) * * *
(G) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995), ``Instrumentation for Impact
Tests,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5).
* * * * *
S6.1.1(c) [Reserved]
S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.
(a) Activate the built-in child restraint or attach the add-on
child restraint to the seat assembly in any of the following manners,
at the agency's option.
(1) Test configuration I.
(i) Child restraints other than belt-positioning seats,
manufactured before [date 3 years from date of publication of final
rule]. Attach the child restraint in any of the following manners
specified in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D), unless otherwise specified
in this standard.
(A) Install the child restraint system at the center seating
position of the standard seat assembly, in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to
S5.6.1, except that the standard lap belt is used and, if provided, a
tether strap may be used. Attach school bus child restraint systems in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
system pursuant to S5.6.1, i.e., the seat back or seat back and seat
pan mounts are used.
(B) Except for a harness, a school bus child restraint system, a
backless child restraint system with a tether strap, and a restraint
designed for use by physically handicapped children, install the child
restraint system at the center seating position of the standard seat
assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), except that no tether strap (or any
other supplemental device) is used.
(C) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system at the center seating position of the standard seat
assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided
with the system pursuant to S5.6.1. The tether strap, if one is
provided, is attached to the tether anchorage.
(D) Install the child restraint system using only the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system as in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device)
is used.
(ii) Belt-positioning seats manufactured before [ date 3 years from
date of publication of final rule]. A belt-positioning seat is attached
to either outboard seating position of the standard seat assembly in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
system pursuant to S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle lap and
shoulder belt and no tether (or any other supplemental device). Place
the belt-positioning seat on the standard seat assembly such that the
center plane of the belt-positioning seat is parallel and aligned to
the center plane of the outboard seating positions on the standard seat
assembly and the base of the belt-positioning seat is flat on the
standard seat assembly cushion. Move the belt-positioning seat rearward
on the standard seat assembly until some part of the belt-positioning
seat touches the standard seat assembly back. Keep the belt-positioning
seat and the seating position center plane aligned as much as possible.
Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the front of the belt-positioning
seat rearward into the standard seat assembly and release.
(iii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system, activate
the restraint in the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle, in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided in accordance
with S5.6.2.
(iv) Child restraints other than booster seats, manufactured on or
after [ date 3 years from date of publication of final rule]. At the
agency's option, attach the child restraint in any of the following
manners specified in S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) through (D), unless otherwise
specified in this standard.
(A) Install the child restraint system on the standard seat
assembly, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided
with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that the standard lap and
shoulder belt is used and, if provided, a tether strap may be used.
Attach the school bus child restraint system in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to
S5.6.1, i.e., the seat back or seat back and seat pan mounts are used.

[[Page 69449]]

(B) Except for a harness, a school bus child restraint system, and
a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children,
install the child restraint system on the standard seat assembly as in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A), except that no tether strap (or any other
supplemental device) is used.
(C) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system on the standard seat assembly in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to
S5.6.1. The tether strap, if one is provided, is attached to the tether
anchorage.
(D) Install the child restraint system using only the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system as in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(C). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device)
is used.
(v) Booster seats manufactured on or after [date 3 years from date
of publication of final rule]. A booster seat is attached to the
standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1 using only the
standard lap and shoulder belt and no tether (or any other supplemental
device). Place the booster seat on the standard seat assembly such that
the center plane of the booster seat is parallel and aligned to the
center plane of the standard seat assembly and the base of the booster
seat is flat on the standard seat assembly cushion. Move the booster
seat rearward on the standard seat assembly until some part of the
booster seat touches the standard seat assembly back. Keep the booster
seat and the seating position center plane aligned as much as possible.
Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the front of the booster seat
rearward into the standard seat assembly and release.
(2) Test configuration II. (i) In the case of each add-on child
restraint system manufactured before [ date 3 years from date of
publication of final rule] which is 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, install the add-on child
restraint system at the center seating position of the standard seat
assembly using only the standard seat lap belt to secure the system to
the standard seat. Do not attach the top tether. In the case of each
add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after [ date 3 years
from date of publication of final rule] which is 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, install the add-on
child restraint system on the standard seat assembly using only the lap
and shoulder belt to secure the system to the standard seat, or at
NHTSA's option, only the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system. Do not attach the top tether.
(ii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system which is
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,
activate the system in the specific vehicle shell or the specific
vehicle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided in
accordance with S5.6.2.
* * * * *
(d) Belt adjustment.
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) All Type I belt systems used to attach an add-on child
restraint to the standard seat assembly, and any provided additional
anchorage belt (tether), are tightened to a tension of not less than
53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell used on the
webbing portion of the belt. All belt systems used to attach a school
bus child restraint system are also tightened to a tension of not less
than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, by measurement means specified in
this paragraph.
* * * * *
S7.1.1 Child restraints that are manufactured on or after date
three years after date of publication of the final rule], are subject
to the following provisions.
(a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass of not greater than 5 kg
(11 lb), or by children in a specified height range that includes any
children whose height is not greater than 650 mm, is tested with a 49
CFR part 572 subpart K dummy (newborn infant dummy).
(b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kg but
not greater than 10 kg (11 to 22 lb), or by children in a specified
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than
650 mm but not greater than 750 mm, is tested with a 49 CFR part 572
subpart K dummy (newborn infant dummy), and a part 572 subpart R dummy
(CRABI 12-month-old infant dummy).
(c) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 10 kg but
not greater than 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb), or by children in a specified
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than
750 mm but not greater than 870 mm, is tested with a part 572 subpart R
dummy (CRABI 12-month-old infant dummy).
(d) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 13.6 kg but
not greater than 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb), or by children in a specified
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than
870 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a part 572 subpart
P dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy).
(e) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 18.2 kg (40
lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb), or by children in a specified
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than
1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572,
subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy).
(f) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 22.7 kg (50
lb) but not greater than 29.5 kg (65 lb) or by children in a specified
height range that includes any children whose height is greater than
1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572,
subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy) and with a part 572,
subpart S dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy).
(g) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass
range that includes any children having a mass greater than 29.5 kg (65
lb) or by children in a specified height range that includes any
children whose height is greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR
part 572, subpart T dummy (Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy).
S7.1.2 Child restraints that are manufactured before [ date three
years after date of publication of the final rule], are subject to the
following provisions and S7.1.3.
* * * * *
S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative dummies. For child restraint
systems

[[Page 69450]]

manufactured before [ date 3 years after date of publication of a final
rule], at the manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably
selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the restraint),
when this section specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572, subpart N
(Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy) test dummy, the test dummy specified in
49 CFR part 572, subpart I (Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) may be used in
place of the subpart N test dummy.
* * * * *
S10.2.2 * * *
(e)(1) When using the Hybrid III 3-year-old (part 572, subpart P)
dummy in a rear-facing child restraint system with an internal
restraint system, remove the knee stop screw (210-6516 in drawing 210-
5000-1,-2; incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5) from the right
and left knee so as to let the knees hyperextend.
(2) Place the Subpart P dummy in the forward- or rear-facing child
restraint system being tested so that the back of the dummy torso
contacts the back support surface of the system. For a child restraint
system equipped with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2
that is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II, do
not attach any of the child restraint belts unless they are an integral
part of the fixed or movable surface. For all other child restraint
systems and for a child restraint system with a fixed or movable
surface that is being tested under the conditions of test configuration
I, attach all appropriate child restraint belts and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2. Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and tighten
them as specified in S6.1.2. Position each movable surface in
accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer provided under
S5.6.1 or S5.6.2.

Figures to Sec. 571.213

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.030

[[Page 69451]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.031

[[Page 69452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.032

[[Page 69453]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.033

[[Page 69454]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.034

[[Page 69455]]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix to Preamble

Estimation of Potential Benefits From the Proposed Increase in the
Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum Child Weight for Use of Forward-Facing
CRSs and Booster Seats

Under FMVSS No. 213, manufacturers label their child restraints
with information about the children for whom the CRS is recommended,
based on the children's height and weight. Children should be rear-
facing until they are at least 1 year in age, as physically they are
safer riding rear-facing so that their head and neck are supported
by the CRS back structure in a crash. Currently, the standard
requires forward-facing child restraints to be recommended for
children weighing a minimum of 9 kg (20 lb). This NPRM proposes to
raise this minimum to 12 kg (26.5 lb), because 12 kg (26.5 lb)
corresponds to the weight of a 95th percentile one-year-old. In
addition, FMVSS No. 213 currently requires booster seats to be
recommended for children weighing at least 13.6 kg (30 lb). This
NPRM proposes to raise that weight limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb). The
proposed increase in the manufacturer-recommended minimum child
weight for forward-facing CRSs reduce the premature graduation from
rear-facing CRSs to forward-facing CRSs, and from forward-facing car
safety seats to booster seats. The proposed changes would align the
standard with current best practices on child passenger safety and
are anticipated to have a beneficial effect on child passenger
safety. This appendix provides the data and analysis methodology to
illustrate and estimate that beneficial effect, in terms of
potential lives saved and injuries prevented.

(1) Increasing Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum Child Weight for
Forward-Facing CRS Use From 9 kg to 12 kg (20 lb to 26.5 lb)

Increasing the manufacturer-recommended minimum child weight for
use of forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg (20 lb to 26.5 lb)
could potentially reduce premature graduation of children to
forward-facing CRSs. NHTSA recommends \139\ that all children up to
the age of one year should always ride in rear-facing CRSs and that
children 1 to 3 years of age ride in rear-facing CRSs as long as
possible and until they reach the upper height or weight limit
allowed by the CRS's manufacturer. By supporting the entire
posterior torso, neck, head, and pelvis, a rear-facing CRS
distributes crash forces over the entire body rather than focusing
them only at belt contact points as with a forward-facing CRS.
Therefore, biomechanical experts, together with the child passenger
safety community, recommend rear-facing CRS use for infants and
toddlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ NHTSA's Car Seat Recommendations: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/nhtsacarseatrecommendations.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To determine the potential lives saved and injuries prevented by
this proposal, the Agency reviewed literature and analyzed available
data for: (a) Estimating the incremental effectiveness of rear-
facing CRSs over forward-facing CRSs in protecting children in
crashes; (b) determining the number of children killed and injured
in CRSs categorized by age of child; (c) the percentage of children
by age in rear-facing and forward-facing CRSs; (d) the percentage of
children by age weighing less than 12 kg (26.5 lb); and, (e) the
percentage of caregivers who would follow manufacturer's
instructions provided on CRS labels and the users' manual regarding
use of the CRS.

Incremental Effectiveness of Rear-Facing CRSs Over Forward-Facing
CRSs

McMurry, et al.\140\ examined the National Automotive Sampling
System--Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data files for the
years 1988-2015 to compare the injury risk for children up to the
age of 2 years in rear-facing CRSs and forward-facing CRSs. The data
showed an extremely low injury rate in children up to 2 years of age
in both rear-facing CRSs and forward-facing CRSs. McMurry noted that
children 2-YO and younger experienced lower rates of injury when
restrained in rear-facing CRSs than when restrained in forward-
facing CRSs, but this difference was not statistically significant.
Due to the absence of any other field data to estimate the
incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRS over forward-facing
CRSs for children up to 2 years of age, NHTSA used the weighted data
in NASS-CDS reported by McMurry, as shown in Table A-1. Though the
weighted data is provided as a percentage, it can still be used to
determine incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRS over forward-
facing CRS since effectiveness is estimated from a ratio of injured
to uninjured occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\140\ McMurry, T.L., Arbogast, K.B., Sherwood, C.P., Vaca, F.,
Bull, M., Crandall, J.R., Kent, R.W., ``Rear-facing versus forward-
facing child restraints: an updated assessment,'' Injury Prevention,
2017;0:1-5.doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042512.

Table A-1--Number of Injured and Uninjured Child Occupants by Age and CRS Orientation (RFCRS or FFCRS) Along
With Survey-Weighted Percentages
[NASS-CDS 1988-2015]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age RFCRS FFCRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infants (0-11 months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uninjured............................. 551 (99.4%) 71 (99.3%)
Injured............................... 27 (0.6%) 3 (0.7%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRSs... =1-(0.6/99.4)/(0.7/99.3) = 0.144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 year-olds (12-23 months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uninjured............................. 98 (99.8%) 339 (99.5%)
Injured............................... 3 (0.2%) 14 (0.5%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRSs... =1-(0.2/99.8)/(0.5/99.5) = 0.601
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McMurry's data in Table A-1 shows that the effectiveness of
rear-facing CRSs over forward-facing CRSs for 0-11 months is 14.4
percent and that for 12-23 months is 60.1 percent. Based on
biomechanical testing, the incremental protection offered by rear-
facing CRSs over forward-facing CRSs should be greater for smaller/
younger children than larger/older children. The 60.1 percent
incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs over forward-facing
CRSs for 12-23 month-old children seems to be rather high
considering the low fatality and injury rates for this age group, so
the agency used the same effectiveness rate for this age group as
that computed for the 0-11 month age group. Therefore, for
estimating the potential benefits of raising the minimum child
weight limit for forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg, the
incremental effectiveness of 14.4 percent was used for rear-facing
CRSs in preventing fatalities among children 0 to 23 months over
that of forward-facing CRSs.

Number of Children Retrained in CRSs Killed Annually in Motor
Vehicle Crashes

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data files for the
5-year period from 2010 to 2014 were analyzed to determine the
annual average number of children restrained

[[Page 69456]]

in CRSs killed in motor vehicle crashes (see Table A-2). These data
files were also analyzed to determine the percentage of fatally
injured children in different types of CRSs (rear-facing CRSs,
forward-facing CRSs, and booster seats) (see Table A-3).

Table A-2--Average Annual Fatalities Among 0-7 Year-Old Children Restrained in CRSs in Rear Seating Positions of Light Vehicles
[2010-2014 FARS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Crash mode <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover.................................. 9.4 8.2 6.6 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.6 2.2 48.6 28.0
Front..................................... 9.2 11.8 9 11.8 8.8 5.8 4.6 2.2 63.2 36.4
Side...................................... 8.2 6.2 5.4 6 3.6 3 2.6 1.8 36.8 21.2
Near-side................................. 5.2 3.8 3.6 4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 23.2 13.4
Far-side.................................. 3 2.4 1.8 2 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.6 13.6 7.8
Rear...................................... 4.2 5.6 4.2 3 3.2 2.6 1.4 0.8 25.0 14.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 31 31.8 25.2 27 21.8 17.6 12.2 7 173.6 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table A-3--Percentage of Fatally Injured Children Restrained in Different CRS Types of CRSs in Rear Seating Positions of Light Vehicles by Age of Child
[FARS 2010-2014]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CRS type (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFCRS................................................... 73.5 11.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
FFCRS................................................... 26.5 85.1 78.7 58.2 38.5 36.5 23.1 11.1
Booster................................................. 0.0 3.0 19.7 41.8 58.5 63.5 76.9 88.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percentage of Children 0 to 3-YO Weighing Less Than 12 kg (26.5 lb)

The percent of children weighing less than 12 kg (26.5 lb) for
children of age less than 1 year, 1-year, 2 years, and 3-years was
determined using the 2000 Center for Disease Control (CDC) Growth
Charts. The percent of girls and boys weighing less than 12 kg from
the growth charts for each month from newborn to 36 months of age
was determined and averaged for 12-month periods to determine the
percentage of children weighing less than 12 kg for less than 1-
year, 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years of age (see Table A-4).\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ Data from 2000 CDC http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts.

Table A-4--Percent of Children Weighing Less Than 12 kg (26.5 lb) by Child Age
[2000 CDC growth charts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1 YO (percent) 1 YO (percent) 2 YO (percent) 3 YO (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentile.................................. 99.8 71.4 22.3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percentage of Caregivers Following Information on CRS Use on CRS
Labels or the Users' Manual

The proposed raising of the manufacturer-recommended minimum
child weight for use of forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg could
reduce premature graduation of children from rear-facing CRSs to
forward-facing CRSs. However, this is contingent upon caregivers
reading and following the manufacturer-supplied information on CRS
use on the CRS labels and the Users' manual.
There is no field data on the percentage of caregivers who would
follow the information on CRS labels or the manual but inferences
can be made from studies on CRS misuse. NHTSA conducted a detailed
review of side impact crashes for the years 2002--2009 \142\ and
frontal impact crashes for the years 2003-2013 \143\ where a CRS
restrained child was killed. This review showed that, among
survivable side and front crashes with a child fatality, nearly half
the children were incorrectly restrained in CRSs, meaning that the
CRSs were either not installed appropriately in the vehicle and/or
the children were not restrained correctly in CRSs in accordance
with manufacturer's instructions. Further, NHTSA's National Child
Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS) published in 2015 noted CRS
misuse of about 46 percent (DOT HS 812 157). This high rate of CRS
misuse means that a change in the minimum child weight for use of
forward-facing CRSs that is provided on CRS labels and in the Users'
manual is highly unlikely to lead to all caregivers making the
switch, as existing instructions themselves are not followed by all
caregivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ PRIA for the January 28, 2014 NPRM to include a side
impact test in FMVSS No. 213 (79 FR 4570, Docket No. NHTSA-2014-
0012).
\143\ This NPRM upgrading the frontal sled test in FMVSS No.
213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency does not have further information on the efficacy of
instructions on CRS labels and the manual and is therefore using the
low rates of 15 percent and 50 percent of caregivers that would
follow the instructions on the CRS labels and manual for forward-
facing CRS use.

Estimating Lives Saved

Using the information derived from field data on the incremental
effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs over forward-facing CRSs, the
number of children killed who are restrained in forward-facing CRSs,
the percentage of children weighing less than 12 kg, and the
assumptions regarding caregivers following CRS use instructions
supplied by the

[[Page 69457]]

manufacturer, the agency estimates that the lives of 0.7-2.3
children 0-2 YO could be saved (see Table A-5) by raising the
manufacturer-recommended minimum child weight for use of forward-
facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg.

Table A-5--Estimate of Potential Lives Saved From the Proposed Increase in the Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum
Child Weight for Use of Forward-Facing CRSs From 9 kg to 12 kg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
-----------------------------------------------
<1 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual Fatalities (a)................................... 31 31.8 25.2
Percent in FFCRS (b)............................................ 26.5% 85.1% 78.7%
Percent weight less than 26.5 lb (c)............................ 99.8% 71.4% 22.3%
Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c)............................. 8.2 19.3 4.4
Effectiveness of RFCRSs vs FFCRSs (e)........................... 14.4% 14.4% 14.4%
Percent people following instructions (f)....................... 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50%
Benefits for 15% follow instructions (d)x(e)x0.15............... 0.2 0.4 0.1
Benefits for 50% follow instructions (d)x(e)x0.5................ 0.6 1.4 0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderate-to-Critical Injuries Prevented Among Children Restrained
in CRSs in Motor Vehicle Crashes

The agency analyzed NASS-CDS data files for the year 2010-2014
to determine average annual Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) \144\
2+ injured children who are restrained in CRSs in rear seating
positions of light vehicles. On an annual average, there were 31
children under 1 year of age and 77 children 1-2 years old that
sustained AIS 2+ injuries for the period 2010-2014 (See Table A-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale is a 6-point ranking system
used for ranking the severity of injuries. AIS2+ Injuries means
injuries of severity level 2 (moderate), 3 (serious), 4 (severe), 5
(critical) according to the Abbreviate Injury Scale. www.aaam.org.

Table A-6--Average Annual Estimates of 0 to 7 Year-Old CRS Restrained Children With AIS 2+ Injuries in Rear
Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes by Crash Mode
[Weighted data NASS-CDS 2010-2014]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash mode Under 1 1-2 YO 3 YO * 4-7 YO Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover........................ 0 0 0 172 172
Front........................... 0 55 37 47 139
Side............................ 30 14 10 1 55
Near-side....................... 29 5 4 0 38
Far-side........................ 1 9 6 1 17
Rear............................ 1 7 5 73 86
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 31 77 51 293 452
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NASS-CDS data have very few cases of restrained injured children. For this reason, the ages are grouped
together. About 40% of AIS 2+ injuries among AIS 2+ 1-3 YO children are to 3-year-old children. Therefore, the
number of 1-2 YO children injured is 128*0.6 = 77.

The information on whether children were restrained in RFCRS or
FFCRS was not available in many cases in the NASS-CDS data files so
this information was obtained from the National Child Restraint Use
Survey System (NCRUSS) \145\ as shown in Table A-7.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\145\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811
679, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142. NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally-representative survey
that involves both an inspection of the child passenger's restraint
system by a certified child passenger safety technician and a
detailed interview of the driver. The survey collected information
on drivers and child passengers ages 0-8 years between June and
August 2011.
\146\ Tables C-5 and C-6 of DOT-HS-812142.

Table A-7--Type of CRS Used to Restrain Children in Non-Fatal Crashes
[NCRUSS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Booster Seat belt
RFCRS percent FFCRS percent percent percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
under 1YO....................................... 96 4 1 ..............
1-2YO........................................... 11 86 2 1
3 YO............................................ .............. 76 22 2
4-7YO........................................... .............. 30 64 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As before, 15 percent to 50 percent of caregivers were assumed
would follow the manufacturer's instructions on CRS labels or the
Users' manual regarding CRS use and would keep children weighing
less than 12 kg (26.5 lb) in rear-facing CRSs. Using these
assumptions along with the percentage effectiveness of RFCRSs over
FFCRS and the 2010-2014 NASS-CDS data, the agency

[[Page 69458]]

estimated that 1.0-3.5 AIS 2+ injuries could be prevented for
children 0-2 YO (see Table A-8) by the proposed change in the
manufacturer-recommended minimum child weight limit for forward-
facing CRS use.

Table A-8--Estimate of Injuries Prevented From the Proposed Increase in
the Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum Child Weight for Use of Forward-
Facing CRSs From 9 kg to 12 kg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
-------------------------------
<1 1-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual AIS 2+ injured children 31 77
(a)....................................
Percent in FFCRS (b).................... 4.0% 86.0%
Percent weight less than 12 kg (26.5 lb) 99.8% 71.4%
(c)....................................
Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c)..... 1.2 47.3
Effectiveness of RFCRSs vs FFCRSs (e)... 14.4% 14.4%
Percent people following label (f)...... 15%-50% 15%-50%
Benefits for 15% follow label 0.0 1.0
(d)x(e)x0.15...........................
Benefits for 50% follow label 0.1 3.4
(d)x(e)x0.50...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency estimates that the increase in the minimum child
weight from 9 kg to 12 kg for FFCRS use could potentially save 0.7-
2.3 lives and prevent 1.0-3.5 AIS 2+ injuries.

(2) Increasing Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum Child Weight for
Booster Seat Use

Increasing the manufacturer-recommended minimum child weight for
booster seat use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 lb to 40 lb) would
reduce premature graduation from forward-facing CRSs to booster
seats. NHTSA determined that among 3- to 4-year-olds, there is a 27
percent increased risk of moderate to fatal injuries when restrained
in booster seats compared to forward-facing CRSs.\147\ The
effectiveness of FFCRS over booster seats is likely reduced for
older children who may be taller and have improved belt fit in a
booster seat. So, for children 5--7 years of age, NHTSA assumed that
there is a 10 percent increased risk of fatal injuries when
restrained in booster seats compared to forward-facing CRSs. An
average 3-year old weighs 13.6 kg (30 lb) and an average 4-year old
weighs 16.1 kg (35.5 lb). Using the 2000 Center for Disease Control
(CDC) Growth Charts, the agency determined the percentage of
children weighing less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) for each age group (see
Table A-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ DOT HS 811 338 July 2010--Booster seat effectiveness
estimates based on CDS and State data.

Table A-9. Percent of Children Weighing Less Than 18.2 kg (40 lb) by Age of Child
[2000 CDC growth charts]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 YO (percent) 3 YO (percent) 4 YO (percent) 5 YO (percent) 6 YO (percent) 7 YO (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentile........................................ 100 100 82.5 50 20 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To determine the lives saved by increasing the minimum child
weight for booster seat use, the agency: (1) Used the fatality data
in Table A-2, the percentage of children in booster seats in Table
A-3, and the percentage of children weighing less than 18.2 kg (40
lb) in Table A-9; (2) made the same assumptions that 15 percent to
50 percent of caregivers would follow manufacturer's instructions in
the CRS labels and/or Users' manual and keep children weighing less
than 18.2 kg (40 lb) in CRSs with internal harnesses, and (3)
followed a similar analysis method as in Table A-5. Based on this
analysis, the agency estimates that 1.2- 4 lives could potentially
be saved (see Table A-10) by raising the manufacturer-recommended
minimum child weight for booster seat use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg
(30 lb to 40 lb).

Table A-10--Estimate of Lives Saved For Proposed Label Change Increasing Weight of Children in Booster Seats From 13.6 to 18.2 kg
[30 to 40 lb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 3 4 5 6 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual Fatalities (a)........................... 25.2 27 21.8 17.6 12.2 7
Percent in booster seats (b)............................ 19.7% 41.8% 58.5% 63.5% 76.9% 88.9%
Percent weight less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) (c)............ 100.0% 100.0% 82.5% 50.0% 20.0% 4.0%
Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c)..................... 5.0 11.3 10.5 5.6 1.9 0.2
Effectiveness of FFCRSs vs Boosters (e)................. 27.0% 27.0% 27.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Percent people following label (f)...................... 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50%
Benefits for 50% follow label (d)x(e)x0.15.............. 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0
Benefits for 15% follow label (d)x(e)x0.5............... 0.7 1.5 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69459]]

Using the data in Table A-6 and Table A-7 and following the
analysis as shown in Table A-10, the number of AIS 2+ injuries were
estimated that could potentially be prevented by the proposed
increase in the minimum child weight recommendation for booster seat
use from 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb). This analysis, shown in
Table A-11, estimated that 1.6-5.2 AIS 2+ injuries could be
prevented.

Table A-11--Estimate of Injuries Prevented for Proposed Increase in
Manufacturer-Recommended Minimum Child Weight for Booster Seat Use From
13.6 to 18.2 kg
[30 to 40 lb]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3 4-7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual AIS 2+ injured children 128 293
(a)....................................
Percent in Boosters (b)................. 9.0% 64.0%
Percent weight less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) 100.0% 39.1%
(c)....................................
Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c)..... 11.5 73.4
Effectiveness of FFCRSs vs. boosters (e) 27.0% 10.0%
Percent people following label (f)...... 15%-50% 15%-50%
Benefits for 70% follow label 0.5 1.1
(d)x(e)x(f)............................
Benefits for 15% follow label 1.6 3.7
(d)x(e)x0.15...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency estimates that the increase in the minimum child
weight for booster seat use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 lb to 40 lb)
could potentially save 1.2-4 lives and prevent 1.6-5.2 AIS 2+
injuries.
In summary, the proposed increase in the manufacturer-
recommended minimum child weight for forward-facing CRS use and
booster seat use could potential save 1.9 to 6.3 lives and prevent
2.6 to 8.7 AIS 2+ injuries.

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-21477 Filed 10-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P