vehicles' ranges. A 494 mm (19.4 in) beltline height and a 229 mm (9
in) armrest height were found to be about the average values for the
vehicles surveyed.
    In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests of
forward-facing and rear-facing CRS models and the Q3s dummy with the
beltline height at 479 mm (18.8 in) and at 500 mm (19.6 in) to
determine the effect of beltline height on dummy responses. Only 2 CRS
models showed slightly lower HIC15 values with the raised
windowsill. Of the 7 CRS models tested with both beltline heights,
chest deflection decreased when the beltline height was raised from 479
mm to 500 mm (18.8 to 19.6 in). Only one CRS model resulted in higher
chest deflections when the windowsill was raised, and 2 CRSs had chest
deflections that were almost unchanged.
    Tests with the CRABI dummy in rear-facing CRSs showed that the
different beltline heights did not affect dummy responses. We believe
this was due to the fact that most rear-facing CRSs designed for
smaller children position

the head lower (mostly below the beltline) and therefore the increased
height (at 500 mm or 19.6 in) did not affect the outcome.
    Only 6 vehicles (of the 24 surveyed) had a windowsill below the 479
mm (18.8 in) and were considered less representative of the vehicle
fleet. Our test results indicated that with the Q3s seated higher above
the beltline, HIC15 values were lower than when the ATD's
head was lower than the beltline. In order to ensure that the side
impact test is sufficiently stringent to account for vehicle beltlines
that are higher than the average value, we are proposing a beltline
height of 500 mm (19.6 in) for the SISA. Although this value is
slightly higher than the average beltline height, it is well within the
range of beltline heights for the vehicles surveyed.
    The dimensions of the SISA door structure and armrest design and
placement relative to the test platform are shown in Figure 5 below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.004

Armrest Stiffness
    To have a door panel/armrest configuration in the SISA test buck
with similar stiffness characteristics to those observed in the
surveyed vehicles, we conducted FMH tests on various padding material
combinations. Four of the 8 vehicles previously tested with the FMH to
assess door panel force displacement characteristics also had impacts
to the armrests to determine their armrest characteristics. The energy
versus displacement curves of FMH impacts to the armrests indicated
that the average armrest stiffness in the vehicles surveyed could be
replicated on the SISA using 64 mm (2.5 in) of the foam we identified
as ``stiff'' foam (United Foam 4) (see ``Rear Seat Door
Stiffness'' section, supra) attached on top of 51 mm (2 in) of the
``average'' foam padding the door structure. Id.
    In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests with the
Maxi Cosi Priori and the Graco Safe Seat 2 with the armrest/door
configuration. The results of these tests were compared to those from
door padding-only sled tests and from the actual vehicle tests. We
found that the addition of the armrest tended to reduce the
HIC15 values of the Q3s due to the early interaction of the
ATD's pelvis resulting from the added armrest. Chest displacements also
tended to be lower with the armrest present, although not as pronounced
as for HIC15.
    NHTSA is proposing that the armrest/door configuration for the SISA
consist of the 51 mm (2 in) ``average'' stiffness foam padding
(Ethafoam 220) on the door and a 64 mm (2.5 in) ``stiff'' foam (United
Foam 4) for the armrest. This configuration appears to be
representative of the rear seat environment, and dummy responses with
this armrest/door configuration were similar to those seen in vehicle
crash tests (see Dynamic Validation of Sled Test section, infra).\77\
Further, the stiff United Foam 4 also has a thickness of 64 mm
(2.5 in) which is within the range of armrest thicknesses from surveyed
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Sullivan et al. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seating Position
    The SISA bench seat consists of a single seating position
representing a rear outboard seating position for simulating a near-
side impact. The centerline of this outboard seating position is at a
distance of 300 mm (11.8 in) measured laterally from the edge of the
bench seat closest to the impacting door. NHTSA is proposing to install
the child restraint centered on the SISA bench seating position. In
addition, NHTSA is proposing that the front face of the armrest on the
door be approximately 32 mm from the edge of the bench seat towards the
child restraint system at the time the door assembly interacts with the
SISA bench seat structure. Because of the prescribed position of the
armrest (32 mm from the edge of the seat) and the CRS (centered 300 mm
from the edge of the seat) at the time the door first interacts with
the bench seat structure, the intruding door will contact CRSs that are
wider earlier in the event than those that are narrower. This would
result in higher door impact velocity to wide CRSs than to narrow CRSs.
We believe this is representative of how different CRS designs will
perform in a specific vehicle. However, we are requesting comment on
whether the distance of the front face of the armrest from the edge of
the seat at the time the sliding seat starts to accelerate should be
kept constant or should be varied such that all CRSs, regardless of
their width, contact the impacting door at the same time and with the
same initial impact speed.
LATCH
    We propose that the SISA be equipped with LATCH anchorages that are
symmetrically located on either side of the centerline of this
simulated

``outboard seating position'' of the SISA bench seat. The location of
the top tether anchorage would be on the lower rear frame of the seat
(similar to the typical location of a tether anchorage in captain's
seats in minivans). The LATCH anchorages are shown in the drawings that
have been placed in the docket for today's NPRM.
    FMVSS No. 213 currently requires CRSs to be capable of being
secured to a vehicle seat with the LATCH system,\78\ and to meet the
frontal crash requirements of the standard when using the LATCH system.
Today's NPRM proposes that CRSs covered in this proposal, other than
belt-positioning seats, must meet the side impact performance
requirements when attached to the SISA with the lower LATCH
attachments. We propose to test belt-positioning seats to the side
impact protection requirements with Type II (lap and shoulder) belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See S5.9, FMVSS No. 213. Excluded from this requirement are
car beds, child harnesses, and belt-positioning seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose that the child restraint's top tether be attached during
the side impact test when testing forward-facing CRSs that provide a
tether. We are requesting comment on whether the standard should also
require testing without the top tether attached for these forward-
facing CRSs.
    Comments are also requested on whether the standard should require
CRSs to meet the proposed side impact requirements when attached to the
SISA with a belt system, and on whether the belt system should be a
Type I (lap) or a Type II (lap and shoulder) belt system.\79\ The
original Takata sled had a Type II belt system; NHTSA modified the test
bench seat to incorporate child restraint anchorages and also modified
the location of the Type II belt anchorages based on NHTSA's survey of
vehicle rear seat geometry.\80\ Preliminary tests conducted with CRSs
attached to the sliding seat using the Type II belt system showed
similar performance metrics to that obtained when the CRSs were
attached using the child restraint anchorage system, suggesting that
the method of CRS attachment has minimal effect on performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ FMVSS No. 213 currently does not use a Type II belt system.
The agency tests CRSs for compliance with the frontal crash
protection requirements using LATCH and a Type I (lap) belt system.
NHTSA is researching the merits of changing the belt system on the
standard seat assembly to Type II belts.
    \80\ Aram, et al., ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study--Technical Report,
NHTSA, 2013,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Dynamic Validation of the Sled Test

    To determine if the sled test with the selected parameters
satisfactorily simulates a small passenger vehicle side impact crash
test, NHTSA conducted four FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 2008 Nissan
Sentra and 2008 Nissan Versa using the Q3s dummy and two CRS models
(see Table 10). For the first test of the Sentra (Test 6634),
the impact location was that specified in FMVSS No. 214. (In an FMVSS
No. 214 MDB test, the MDB is positioned such that in a left side
impact, the MDB's left forward edge (corner) impacts the struck vehicle
940 mm (37 inches) forward of the mid-point of the wheelbase.) In the
remaining three tests, the impact location was moved 229 mm (9 in)
rearward so that the MDB engaged most of the rear door instead of the
front door, to provide for more direct contact of the MDB with the CRS.
The side curtain air bags were disabled from the vehicle tests to allow
for a direct comparison to the sled. (Sullivan (2009).)

                                          Table 10--Vehicle Test Setups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test No.              Vehicle model      Model class     Impact location        CRS           Dummy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6634.........................  Sentra..........  Light PV........  214.............  Graco Safe Seat  Q3s.
                                                                                Step 2.
6635.........................  Sentra..........  Light PV........  214-229mm to      Graco Safe Seat  Q3s.
                                                                    rear.             Step 2.
6636.........................  Versa...........  Compact PV......  214-229mm to      Graco Safe Seat  Q3s.
                                                                    rear.             Step 2.
6637.........................  Versa...........  Compact PV......  214-229mm to      Maxi-Cosi        Q3s.
                                                                    rear.             Priori.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 11 shows data from the vehicle tests. The technical report
docketed with this NPRM presents a detailed analysis of these data. The
sled type side impact test with a 10 degree angle, an armrest and a
beltline height of 479 mm (18.8 in) \81\ provided good representation
of the vehicle, dummy, and CRS kinematics observed in the vehicle
tests. In both sled and vehicle tests, the intruding door and armrest
first engages the lower part of the CRS, causing the bottom of the CRS
to move away from the door. This results in the top of the CRS tilting
towards the door and contacting it. The child dummy is first engaged by
the CRS through the pelvis, followed by the torso and lastly the head.
The dummy's head rotates forward when it contacts the side wing of the
CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The agency did not perform a sled test with a window sill
height of 500 mm (19.6 in) with the Graco Safe Seat Step 2 or the
Maxi Cosi Priori CRS models (tested in the vehicle crash tests),
therefore, no dynamic comparison analysis was done. Based on the
sensitivity analysis results with the two different window sill
heights, the agency expects the magnitude of the head acceleration
to be slightly higher but the timing and profile of the head and
pelvis accelerations should be very similar to the tests with a
window sill height of 479 mm (18.8 in).

                                            Table 11--Vehicle and Sled Tests With the Graco Safe Seat Step 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chest                          Spine Y        Pelvic Y
                Test No.                     Vehicle model/sled test           HIC15       displacement    Neck tension    acceleration    acceleration
                                                                                (mm)        newtons  (N)         (g)             (g)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6634...................................  Sentra.........................             521              17            1054              89              71
6635...................................  Sentra.........................             518              12            1244              85              79
6636...................................  Versa..........................             414              14            1235              91             106
6904...................................  Sled Test (10 degrees, Armrest              634              25             944              91              83
                                          and 479 mm beltline).
6905...................................  Sled Test (10 degrees, Armrest              594              25             999              93              75
                                          and 479 mm beltline).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Q3s dummy responses in the modified Takata sled tests were
compared to the three vehicle side impact crash tests. Peak pelvic and
spine accelerations were similar but the magnitude of HIC15
and chest displacement in the sled tests were slightly higher than
those in the vehicle tests. The differences in magnitude can be
attributed to the differences in vehicle rear seat geometry and to that
of the sled seat. The geometry of the sled seat was based on average
characteristics of the vehicle fleet, and not based on the Nissan
Sentra. In addition, differences in the arm position of the dummy in
the vehicle and sled tests may have contributed to the higher chest
deflection in the sled tests. The effect of the arm position on chest
deflection is discussed in more detail in a later section of this
preamble.

XII. Proposed Dynamic Performance

    A 3 YO child test dummy and a 12 MO infant dummy have been
tentatively selected for testing CRSs under the proposed side impact
requirements.

a. Q3s Test Dummy

    The agency has selected the Q3s dummy, representing a 3 YO child,
for testing CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes
children weighing from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb). The 18 kg (40
lb) weight cut off would be identical to that of the frontal collision
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 (see S7). For the frontal crash
requirements, a Hybrid III 3 YO child ATD is used to test CRSs
recommended for children weighing from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb).
The agency tentatively concludes that the Q3s, weighing 14.5 kg (32
lb), would suitably represent children in the 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to
40 lb) range for side impact testing. The anthropometry of the Q3 (and
the side impact adaptation Q3s) is based on the Child Anthropometry
Database (CANDAT) for a 3 YO child compiled by the Netherlands
Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). CANDAT includes
various characteristic dimensions and weights of children of different
ages obtained from different regions in the world including United
States, Europe, and Japan.
    The Q3s dummy is a three-year-old child crash test dummy built on
the platform of the standard Q3 dummy series with enhanced lateral
biofidelity, durability and additional instrumentation for side impact
testing. The Q3s dummy features a new head and a neck that has
biofidelic lateral, and frontal performance. The ATD also has a
deformable shoulder with shoulder deflection measurement capabilities,
a new arm with improved flesh characteristics, a laterally compliant
chest and a pelvis with improved upper leg flesh, floating hip cups,
and a pubic load transducer.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Carlson, M., Burleigh, M., Barnes, A., Waagmeester, K., van
Ratingen, M. ``Q3s 3 Year Old Side Impact Dummy Development,'' 20th
International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper
No. 07-0205, 2007. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0205-O.pdf. Last accessed on June 11, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency began evaluating the Q3s in 2002. The evaluation has
demonstrated good biofidelity, repeatability, reproducibility, and
durability. We have tentatively selected the Q3s dummy for this NPRM
because it is commercially available, and has shown to be durable and
biofidelic for the intended application in the proposed FMVSS No. 213
side impact tests. Further discussion of the Q3s can be found in the
NPRM proposing incorporation of the Q3s test dummy into 49 CFR Part
572, ``Anthropomorphic test devices,'' previously published.
    The Q3s dummy accepts different types of instrumentation, including
accelerometers and load cells among others. The instrumentation we
propose using with the ATD are three uni-axial accelerometers at the
head center of gravity (C.G.) and an InfraRed Telescoping Rod for
Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) in the thorax for measuring
lateral chest deflection. The IR-TRACC is a deformation measurement
tool that consists of an infrared LED emitter and an infrared
phototransistor detector. The emitter and detector are enclosed at each
end of a telescoping tube. The chest deformation is determined from the
irradiance measured by the detector, which is inversely proportional to
the distance of the detector from the emitter. The IR-TRACC is standard
instrumentation in the Q3s dummy.
    The enhanced biofidelity and instrumentation capabilities of the
Q3s make it our preferred option for use in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA has
considered an alternative 3 YO child ATD, based on the Hybrid III
design, for use in this NPRM. Our reasons for preferring the Q3s are
discussed in the 49 CFR Part 572 NPRM.\83\ We request comments on the
alternative of using the Hybrid III-based 3 YO ATD instead of the Q3s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ NHTSA found that the two dummies' heads and necks provided
nearly equivalent biofidelity; however, in all other biofidelity
test conditions--shoulder, thorax and pelvis--the Q3s exhibited
significant advantages relative to the alternative HIII 3-YO design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury Criteria for Use With the Q3s
    The agency analyzed NASS-CDS data average annual estimates (1995-
2009) for AIS 2+ injuries to children 0 to 12 YO in rear seats. Data
showed that the most common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained
in side impacts were to the head and face (55 percent), torso (chest
and abdomen--29 percent), and upper and lower extremities (13 percent).
Given the high frequency of head and thoracic injuries to children
involved in side crashes reported in these data and in multiple
studies,\84\ the injury criteria proposed in this NPRM focus on the
child occupant's head and thorax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Craig, M., ``Q3s Injury Criteria,'' which is in the
docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing to address the potential for head injuries
by setting a maximum on the HIC value measured by the Q3s in the side
impact test. HIC is used in FMVSS No. 213 and in all other
crashworthiness FMVSSs that protect against adult and child head
injury. However, while the current FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact
requirement specifies an injury assessment reference value (IARV) of
1,000 measured in a 36 ms timeframe (36 ms for integrating head
acceleration) (HIC36 = 1,000), we are proposing a HIC limit
of 570 measured in a 15 ms timeframe (15 ms duration for integrating
head resultant acceleration) (HIC15 = 570) when using the
Q3s dummy in the side impact sled test. FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection,'' uses HIC15 = 570 for the Hybrid III 3 YO
dummy.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ In developing this NPRM, NHTSA has considered alternative
HIC15 requirements of 400 and 800. The PRIA provides an
assessment of benefits and costs of the HIC15 = 400 and
800 alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact performance
requirement specifies a HIC36 IARV of 1,000 when using the
CRABI and the Hybrid III 3 and 6 YO dummies in the standard's frontal
impact test.\86\ We also recognize that in a 2003 rulemaking responding
to the TREAD Act, NHTSA considered adopting the FMVSS No. 208 scaled
IARVs in FMVSS No. 213 but decided against doing so (68 FR 37620,
37649; June 24, 2003). CRSs were already providing high levels of crash
performance in the field, yet frontal sled test data indicated that
CRSs would not

meet the FMVSS No. 208 scaled IARV limits. It was not known what
modifications to CRSs were necessary for the restraints to meet the
FMVSS No. 208 limits in the frontal configuration. In addition to
questions about the practicability of modifying CRSs to meet the
proposed IARVs and the safety need for such modifications, the agency
decided that the cost increases resulting from the redesign--and the
possible negative effect the cost increases could have on consumers'
use of CRSs--were not justified. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The agency did not adopt the use of HIC as an injury
measure for the Hybrid III 10-YO child dummy (HIII-10C) dummy in
FMVSS No. 213 tests because CRSs tested with the HIII-10C dummy can
produce high HIC values as a result of hard chin-to-chest contact,
indicating an unacceptable risk of head injury, even though head
injuries due to chin-to-chest contact are not occurring in the real
world. (76 FR 11626; February 27, 2012.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We tentatively conclude that today's proposed side impact test
differs from FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact test such that the FMVSS
No. 208 scaled IARV of HIC15 = 570 is reasonable for today's
proposal. FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact test evaluates the performance
of CRSs on a frontal impact sled buck that does not have a structure
(representing a front seat) forward of the tested CRS on the bench
seat. In contrast, in today's proposed side impact test, the test
environment is set up so that ATD head contact with the CRS and the
door is probable. Injurious contacts (such as head-to-door contacts)
are of short duration (less than 15 ms) in this set-up and more
appropriately addressed by HIC15 (15 millisecond duration
for integrating head resultant acceleration) than HIC36. For
head impact accelerations with duration less than 15 ms, the computed
value of HIC15 and HIC36 are generally
equivalent. However, since the injury threshold level for
HIC15 is 570 while that for HIC36 is 1,000,
HIC15 is a more stringent requirement than HIC36
for short duration impacts and is better able to discern injurious
impact events. On the other hand, for long duration accelerations
without a pronounced peak such as those when the head does not contact
any hard surfaces such as in the frontal FMVSS No. 213 test, the
computed HIC15 value may be lower than the HIC36
value and the HIC36 computation may be a better
representation of the overall head acceleration.
    With regard to chest protection, the agency proposes a chest
displacement IARV for the Q3s of 23 mm to evaluate CRS performance in a
side environment. Mertz (2003) \87\ presented lateral thoracic injury
risk IARVs for deflection purely based on length-based scaling from
adult cadaver/dummy response. Mertz suggested a limit of 23 mm for 3 YO
lateral rib deflection. This was derived only through length-based
scaling from the adult and represented roughly a 30 percent probability
of AIS 3+ injury. This compared very well with length-based scaling of
chest deflection data from 42 adult post-mortem human subject (PMHS)
tests completed by the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) and published
by Kuppa (2003).\88\ This length-based scaling analysis of the MCW data
is detailed in a technical report docketed along with this NPRM.\89\
The results of that analysis found that a displacement of 23 mm
represented a 33 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. While Mertz and Craig
used different and independent data sets, the rib deflection threshold
at 30 percent risk of injury for the 3 YO child were similar and equal
to 23 mm. Therefore, the agency proposes a chest displacement IARV of
23 mm to evaluate CRS performance with the Q3s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Mertz et al., ``Biomechanical and Scaling Bases for Frontal
and Side Impact Injury Assessment Reference Values,'' 47th Stapp Car
Crash Conference, 2003-22-0009, October 2003.
    \88\ Kuppa et al., ``Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury
Criteria and Their Application to the Modified ES-2 Dummy with Rib
Extensions (ES-2re),'' 47th Stapp Car Crash Conference, October
2003.
    \89\ Craig, M., ``Q3s Injury Criteria,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA tentatively believes that there is not a need for a
performance criterion that would prohibit head contact with the
intruding door.\90\ NHTSA's video analysis showed that 13 out of 19
forward-facing CRS models had head-to-door contact during the test.
However, further analysis of the head acceleration time histories
showed that the peak acceleration occurred before the head contacted
the door. Six of the 13 models that had head-to-door contact had
HIC15 values exceeding 570; these peak HIC15
values occurred prior to head contact with the door. This suggested
that the peak head acceleration was the result of a previous impact,
most likely the head contacting the side of the CRS at the time the CRS
contacted the intruding door. (Four of the ``convertible'' CRS models
tested in the forward-facing mode, were also tested in the rear-facing
mode using the Q3s dummy; the results showed there was no head-to-door
contact during these tests.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Such a performance criterion for CRSs is currently being
used in the Australian standard AS/NZS 1754, and the Australian CREP
consumer information program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the head acceleration values computed during the time of
head-to-door contact were lower than the peak head acceleration, we
believe that the risk of head injury from head-to-door contacts for the
13 CRSs was much lower than the risk from the peak acceleration. For
the above reasons, the agency has tentatively decided not to use a
performance criterion based on head contact in tests with the Q3s dummy
because HIC15 appears better able to discern between
``soft'' non-injurious contacts and ``hard'' injurious contacts, and
thus would be a better predictor of head injury in the side impact
test.

b. CRABI Dummy

    The agency has tentatively selected the CRABI dummy (49 CFR Part
572, Subpart R) for testing CRSs designed to seat children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 10 kg (22 lb). The 10 kg (22 lb)
weight cut off would be identical to that of the frontal collision
requirement of FMVSS No. 213 (see S7 of FMVSS No. 213), which specifies
use of the CRABI to test CRSs recommended for children weighing from 5
kg to 10 kg (11 lb to 22 lb).
    The CRABI was developed through the efforts of the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction Task
Force. The ATD is used in FMVSS No. 208 to test advanced air bag
systems and in FMVSS No. 213.\91\ The CRABI dummy is a frontal crash
test dummy and is instrumented with head, neck and chest
accelerometers. The CRABI represents a 12 MO infant. There is no infant
test dummy available that is specially designed for side impact
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ When the CRABI is used in the FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact
test, CRSs must limit HIC36 to 1,000, chest g to 60 g,
limit head excursion of the dummy, limit inclination of the
restraint, have no injurious surfaces contactable by the ATD's head
or torso, and maintain the CRS's structural integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the CRABI dummy is not a side impact dummy, the agency
believes that it could be a useful tool to evaluate some aspects of CRS
performance in side impacts. Children under 1 YO have the highest
restraint use, so we believe that it is important for safety and for
MAP-21 to evaluate the performance of the CRSs they use, even if the
evaluation is limited to containment, structural integrity, and other
related matters.
Performance Criteria for Use With the CRABI
    NHTSA is proposing that the CRABI be used to measure head-to-door
contact only, and not HIC15 or chest acceleration. We have
concerns about the real world relevance of the HIC values measured
during developmental side impact testing using the CRABI dummy. In 12
side tests performed with rear-facing CRSs using the CRABI dummy,
nearly all of the CRSs exceeded the HIC15 injury threshold
value of 390 (used in FMVSS No. 208). See Figure 6, below. Four
``convertible'' CRS models tested in rear-facing mode were also tested
in forward-facing mode using the

CRABI dummy and in these tests, 2 of the 4 CRSs exceeded the 390
HIC15 injury threshold. Tests with the CRABI showed a high
rate of HIC15 failure, yet field experience of rear-facing
seats indicate that the CRSs are very safe in side impacts and provide
5 times more protection against serious injury than forward-facing
seats in side impacts.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Sherwood et al. (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We hypothesize that a reason for the results using HIC15
as a performance criterion is that the CRABI dummy's shoulder and neck
are not designed for lateral loading and this may influence head
kinematics prior to contact with the CRS/door. Additionally, the CRABI
head does not meet lateral biofidelity standards. Therefore, both the
severity of the resulting head contacts and the response of the head to
those contacts may not be representative of the real world.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.005

    On the other hand, we tentatively believe that the CRABI dummy
would be suitable and should be used for assessing safety risks related
to a CRS's ability to limit head-to-door contact in side crashes.
Because the 0 to 12 MO age group has the highest restraint use of any
age group, we seek to evaluate the performance of CRSs for this age
group in side crashes even if such evaluation is limited to assessing
head-to-door contact. Although the CRABI dummy may not be appropriate
for use in measuring the potential for head injuries using
HIC15, the agency tentatively believes that the CRABI dummy
could provide some other useful information evaluating child restraints
for small children. That is, the CRABI could provide a worst-case
assessment of injury risk in a side impact in terms of head-to-door
contact. If the CRS were unable to prevent the ATD's head from
contacting the door in the test, we believe such an outcome would be a
reasonable indication of an unacceptable risk of head contact of
children represented by the CRABI. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes head-to-
door contact as a pass-fail criterion for assessing CRSs tested with
the CRABI. We believe that this criterion will lead to improved side
coverage. In our study, video analysis showed that 1 (Combi Shuttle)
out of 12 rear-facing CRS models tested with the CRABI dummy had head-
to-door contact during the test.
    In addition, we tentatively believe that the CRABI dummy would be
suitable and should be used for assessing a CRS's ability to maintain
its structural integrity in side crashes when restraining 1 YO
children. (Structural integrity requirements are discussed below.) We
seek comment on the use of the CRABI dummy, and on the use of the
proposed head-to-door contact pass-fail criterion.

c. Energy Absorption and Distribution

    In the simulated side impact test, the CRS would be required to
maintain system integrity when tested with the Q3s and with the CRABI.
When a CRS is dynamically tested with the appropriate ATD, there could
not be any complete separation of any load-bearing structural element
of the CRS or any partial separation exposing surfaces with sharp edges
that may contact an occupant. These requirements would reduce the
likelihood that a child using the CRS would be injured by the collapse
or disintegration of the system in a side crash or by contact with the
interior of the passenger compartment or with components of the CRS.
    Injury from contacting protrusions, such as the pointed ends of
screws mounted in padding, would be prevented in a similar manner as
that specified for the frontal crash test in FMVSS No. 213. The height
of such

protrusions would be limited to not more than 9.5 mm (0.375 in) above
any immediately adjacent surface. Also, contactable surfaces (surfaces
contacted by the head or torso of the ATD) would not be permitted to
have an edge with a radius of less than 6.35 mm (0.25 in), even under
padding. Padding will compress in an impact and the load imposed on the
child would be concentrated and potentially injurious.

XIII. Fleet Testing

a. Q3s Dummy

    NHTSA tested 12 forward-facing and 5 rear-facing CRSs to estimate
the performance of the fleet with the Q3s in the proposed test
procedure.\93\ Details of the test series are discussed in the
technical report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ CRS models tested were a representative sample of seats
available in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying the proposed injury criteria specified for the Q3s dummy
(HIC15 <=570, chest deflection <=23 mm), the results of the
fleet tests showed that the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than
570 in 7 of the 12 forward-facing CRSs tested. The Q3s measured chest
deflection greater than 23 mm (0.91 in) in 3 of the 12 forward-facing
CRSs tested. The ATD measured both HIC15 greater than 570
and chest deflection greater than 23 mm in 3 of the tests of the
forward-facing CRSs.
    For the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, the results of the fleet tests
showed that the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 570 in 3 of
the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, and chest deflection greater than 23 mm
(0.91 in) in 2 of the 5 tests. The ATD measured both HIC15
greater than 570 and chest deflection greater than 23 mm (0.91 in) in 1
of the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested. The test results are shown in Figure
7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.006

    As to positioning the Q3s, we note that further analysis of the
data showed that the chest displacements of the Q3s, tested in the same
CRS model, were higher when the dummy's arm was positioned in line with
the thorax, than when the arm was rotated upward exposing the thorax to
direct contact with the intruding door. The agency is proposing an arm
position at 25 degrees with respect to the thorax. The Q3s dummy's
shoulder contains a detent to aid in positioning the arm at 25 degrees
with respect to the thorax. We are requesting comment on the arm
position.
    When testing with the Q3s dummy in a rear-facing CRS, the legs of
the dummy were extended upwards and rotated down until they were in
contact with the SISA seat back. We are also requesting comment on the
position of the Q3s dummy legs when testing rear-facing CRSs with this
dummy.

b. CRABI Dummy

    NHTSA tested 12 rear-facing CRSs to estimate the performance of the
fleet with the CRABI. All tests were performed with the SISA mounted on
a dynamic test platform so that the seat orientation reference line
(SORL) of the seat was 10 degrees from the perpendicular direction of
the test platform travel. CRSs were attached to the seat bench using
LATCH. A 64 mm (2.5 in) thick armrest of ``stiff'' foam was added to
the 50 mm (2 in) door panel foam. Twelve tests were performed with a
window sill height at 479 mm (18.8 in). The test procedure proposed in
today's NPRM was used for this fleet test except for the use of the
NPACS foam instead of the ECE R.44 foam and a window sill height of 479
mm (18.8 in) instead of a 500 mm (19.6 in) window sill height. The
NPACS foam was used on these series of tests, as previous testing
appeared to show that cushion stiffness did not have a significant
influence in the readings of the ATDs.
    Three additional tests were performed with the beltline at 500 mm
(19.6 in).\94\

Tests showed that the increase in window sill height did not
significantly affect the performance of the rear-facing CRS using the
CRABI. Models of CRSs for younger children generally positioned the
head below a window sill height of 479 mm (18.8 in), so the CRSs will
continue to be below the window sill when the window sill is at a
height of 500 mm (19.6 in).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ The seat cushion consisted of ECE R.44 foam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using head-to-door contact as the performance criterion in the
fleet tests, the results showed that the CRABI had head contact only
with the Combi Shuttle model (1 out of 12 models). The Combi Shuttle
model was retested and results were found to be repeatable. The test
results are summarized in Table 12.

                  Table 12--Fleet Tests Results--CRABI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CRABI                Window sill @ 500   Window sill @ 479
---------------------------------    mm (19.6 in)        mm (18.8 in)
                                 ---------------------------------------
           Rear-facing                  Contact             Contact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi Shuttle...................  * Contact.........  Contact.
Combi Shuttle...................  * Contact.........
Britax Advocate.................  No contact........  No contact.
Combi Zeus 360..................  ..................  No contact.
Safety 1st Air Protect..........  ..................  No contact.
Graco My Ride...................  ..................  No contact.
Evenflo Discovery 5.............  ..................  No contact.
Chicco Key Fit 30...............  ..................  No contact.
Safety 1st Designer.............  ..................  No contact.
Britax Chaperone................  ..................  No contact.
Maxi Cosi Mico..................  ..................  No contact.
Safety 1st OnBoard..............  ..................  No contact.
Peg Pereggo.....................  ..................  No contact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Repeat tests to evaluate containment.

XIV. Countermeasure Assessment

    The tests NHTSA performed during the development of the test
procedure showed that some design characteristics such as side coverage
(through head inserts or side structure/wings) can influence the values
measured by the test dummy. As previously discussed, we examined each
CRS with a seated Q3s dummy from a side view to evaluate if the head of
the dummy was completely covered (obscured) by the side structure or
wing insert or if it was partially visible. We rated designs as
``good'' (solid outline) when they had ``full'' side view coverage
(dummy's head not visible, totally obscured). We considered the CRS
designs as ``average'' (dashed outline) when 75 percent or more of the
dummy's head was obscured by the side structure or wing insert. We
considered a ``poor'' design (filled-in black) to be when less than 75
percent of the dummy's head was obscured by the side structure and/or
head insert. Interestingly, test results showed that the CRSs with less
side coverage (filled-in black) had the highest HIC15 values
when tested with the beltline height at 479 mm (18.8 in) and at 500 mm
(19.6 in). Results are depicted in Figures 8 and 9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.008

    These test results indicate that ``good'' side coverage as a
fundamental element of the child restraint design can help improve
child restraint performance. This can be achieved by having more side
structure with padding on the interior side and/or by adding padded
head inserts.
    We note that other features observed in the tested CRS models were
a side air baffle (Britax Advocates) and an air pillow (Safety 1st Air
Protect). According to the manufacturers of those CRSs, both the air
baffle and the air pillow are supposed to absorb energy during impact.
NHTSA was unable to verify these statements in our developmental
program. We are interested in data showing that these or any other
features are effective in improving CRS side impact performance.

XV. Petition Regarding Deceleration Sled System

Dorel Juvenile Group Petition for Rulemaking

    On May 4, 2009, we received a petition from the Dorel Juvenile
Group (DJG) requesting us to include in our side impact proposal a
dynamic side impact test procedure that uses a deceleration sled, as an
alternative or substitute to a procedure based on the acceleration
sled. The petitioner noted that NHTSA's developmental work for this
NPRM was done at VRTC, which uses an acceleration sled. Unlike an
acceleration sled, a deceleration sled is first accelerated to a target
velocity and then decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile. The
main event of interest occurs during the sled deceleration phase.
    DJG stated that the primary reason the new side impact test
procedure for CRSs should allow a deceleration sled as an option to the
acceleration sled is because CRS manufacturers are familiar with the
deceleration sled in the frontal impact context, and either have or
have ready access to deceleration sled equipment. It further noted that
the deceleration sled is less expensive to acquire and operate.
    In its petition, DJG described work it conducted in collaboration
with Kettering University to develop a CRS side impact sled test
procedure using a deceleration sled (hereinafter referred to as the
Dorel/Kettering test procedure). DJG's petition provided a description
of the Dorel/Kettering test procedure and included preliminary sled
test data simulating a New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) MDB side
impact test.
    According to DJG, the Dorel/Kettering test procedure employed a
deceleration sled with a simulated door rigidly mounted to it (bullet
sled) which impacted a target sled (bench seat with a CRS installed on
it) that was initially stationary on a pair of low friction bearings,
separate from the sled. In the procedure, the sled was accelerated to
the impact velocity of the NCAP MDB barrier face. The petitioner stated
that the sled decelerator was tuned to match the MDB deceleration
profile. The target sled was positioned such that contact of the
honeycomb on the target sled with the door structure was coincident
with the initiation of sled deceleration. The characteristics of the
honeycomb attached to the target sled were selected such that its
crushing resulted in the desired target sled acceleration profile
(acceleration profile of the impacted vehicle in a side NCAP test).
    DJG provided data from four baseline sled tests, using a Hybrid III
3 YO child dummy with a modified neck (HIII-3Cs) in a CRS attached to
the target sled, which were conducted to establish test parameters such
as the bullet and target sled velocities. DJG also presented results to
demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the bullet and target sled
velocities. In addition, DJG conducted a sensitivity analysis of
various test parameters and said that the only parameter affecting the
target sled was the honeycomb crushable area.
    DJG stated that it later conducted sled tests with the HIII-3Cs
dummy in a Maxi Cosi Priori and a Safety 1st 3-in-1 forward-facing
child restraint and compared the results with tests conducted by
NHTSA's VRTC, which used an acceleration sled with the HIII-3Cs dummy
in the same child restraints. According to DJG, the comparison showed
that even though there were

some differences in the methods, sled setups, and dummy neck hardware,
the Dorel/Kettering target sled kinematics were comparable to that of
the VRTC acceleration sled sliding seat, including the rate of
acceleration, peak acceleration, and pulse duration. In addition, DJG
noted that the dummy response duration and the impacting speed in the
two sled systems were similar. Based on these data, DJG concluded that
the Dorel/Kettering deceleration test procedure ``complements'' the
VRTC acceleration sled test procedure and requested that the Dorel/
Kettering deceleration test method be included in the proposal for a
new side impact test in FMVSS No. 213.
    The DJG petition, along with the test data, is available in the
docket of this NPRM.

Discussion of Petition

    After analyzing the petitioner's data, we are unable to conclude
that the Dorel/Kettering test procedure complements, i.e., is
comparable to, the Takata procedure we evaluated on the acceleration
sled. While the Dorel/Kettering test procedure appears to represent the
intruding door velocity profile reasonably well, it does not
sufficiently estimate the change in velocity of the passenger
compartment as does the Takata acceleration sled procedure. The Dorel/
Kettering test procedure does not include oblique side impacts or a
representative armrest to the intruding door. In addition, the
resultant head acceleration, HIC, upper neck forces and moments, pelvic
resultant acceleration, and resultant spine acceleration of the HIII-
3Cs dummy were consistently lower in the Dorel/Kettering tests than in
the acceleration sled tests using the same CRS, door impact velocity,
and similar type of dummy.\95\ DJG has also not presented any data
demonstrating that the dummy responses in the Dorel/Kettering sled
tests are similar to those observed in vehicle crash tests. For these
reasons, we believe that the Dorel/Kettering test procedure needs
further development to represent the crash environment experienced by
children in child restraints in near-side impacts in a manner
comparable to the Takata procedure evaluated by the agency on the
acceleration sled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The Dorel/Kettering test procedure has not been evaluated
using the Q3s child dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note, however, that one of the strengths of the Takata test
procedure is its simplicity and apparent versatility for application on
an acceleration or a deceleration sled system. We believe that the
provisions of the proposed test procedure, specified in the regulatory
text, can be used to conduct the test on either an acceleration or a
deceleration sled. Therefore, we do not believe there is a need to
include a new test procedure expressly applicable to a deceleration
sled in this proposal, as DJG requested.
    It is our desire that the proposed test procedure be specified in a
way that it can be conducted on an acceleration or a deceleration sled.
The agency is planning to evaluate the repeatability and
reproducibility of the proposed sled test procedure in different
laboratories. We are interested in comments on what parameters,
additional to the proposed specifications, should be specified to
reproduce the proposed test procedure on a deceleration sled.
    In any event, we note that under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, child restraint manufacturers are required to
certify the compliance of their child restraints with the applicable
FMVSSs. The Safety Act does not require manufacturers to certify their
products using the test procedures specified in the applicable safety
standard. Instead, the safety standard sets forth the procedures that
NHTSA will take to conduct compliance tests. In the event of a
noncompliance with an FMVSS, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer the basis
for its certification, and will review the data upon which the
certification was made. Depending on the situation, the information
used for the certification could be from a sled test matching the test
specified in the standard, a comparable sled test providing valid and
accurate results, or it could be from entirely different method of
inquiry as long as a good faith certification could be made. Thus, if
FMVSS No. 213 were to specify a test that describes an acceleration
sled system, that would not preclude a manufacturer from using a
deceleration sled to test and certify its child restraints.
Accordingly, since the FMVSSs do not need to incorporate a specific
test procedure preferred by a manufacturer for the manufacturer to be
able to use the test procedure as its chosen basis for certification,
the petitioner's requested action is not necessary. For these reasons,
the petition is denied.

XVI. Costs and Benefits

    There are approximately 7.42 million child restraints sold annually
for children weighing up to 40 lb. These child restraints are composed
of rear-facing infant seats, convertible seats (seats that can be used
rear-facing and forward-facing), toddler seats (seats with harnesses,
used only forward-facing), and combination seats (seats that can be
used from forward-facing to booster mode). Of this total, it is
estimated that there are approximately 2.73 million infant seats, 2.76
million convertible/toddler seats and 1.93 million combination seats.
These sales estimates are based on sales in calendar year 2011.
    Based on our sled test data, we estimate that approximately 80
percent of rear-facing infant seats (2.18 million) would need larger
wings (padded side structure) and/or additional padding, and that
similar countermeasures would be needed for 58.3 percent of the
convertible/toddler seats (1.6 million) and 58.3 percent of combination
seats (1.1 million). The retail cost of padding for rear-facing seats
is estimated to be $0.66 per CRS. Accordingly, we estimate that the
annual consumer cost for 2.18 million rear-facing CRSs that do not
already comply with this test would be $1.441 million. The retail cost
of padding for convertible/toddler seats that do not already comply
with this test is estimated to be approximately $0.82 per CRS, so the
annual consumer cost for 1.6 million convertible/toddler seats would be
$1.321 million. The retail cost of padding for combination seats that
do not already comply with this test is estimated to be approximately
$0.82 per CRS, so the annual consumer cost for 1.1 million combination
CRSs would be $0.925 million. The total annual consumer cost for the
CRSs is estimated to be approximately $3.687 million. Distributing this
total cost to all child restraints sold annually for children weighing
up to 40 lb (7.42 million child restraints) results in an average cost
of $0.50 per child restraint. Comments are requested on these
calculations.
    This NPRM proposes to apply the side impact protection requirements
to belt-positioning seats designed for children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) to improve the protection of
children seated in such CRSs. Applying the side impact protection
requirements to more children than less is consistent with MAP-21. We
do not have test data that can be used to estimate the countermeasures
needed on belt-positioning seats to meet the proposed side impact
protection requirements. Comments are requested on the countermeasures
needed by belt-positioning seats to meet side impact requirements when
tested with the Q3s.
    Since CRSs sold for children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb) would
be excluded from the proposed side impact protection requirements, an
approach available at no additional cost to manufacturers would be to
re-label the

belt-positioning seat as not recommended for children weighing less
than 18 kg (40 lb). We find this approach to be desirable in that it is
aligned with NHTSA's view \96\ that children under age 4 are more
protected in a CRS with a harness than in a belt-positioning seat.
Moreover, the labeling change would increase the likelihood that
children would be restrained by CRSs that meet side impact protection
requirements up to 18 kg (40 lb) (until about 4 years in age).
Regardless of whether a manufacturer re-labels the belt-positioning
seat to restrict use of the belt-positioning seat to children weighing
over 18 kg (40 lb) or designs a belt-positioning seat to meet the
proposed requirements, the effect of the proposed requirement would be
to improve the side impact protection to children weighing less than 18
kg (40 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ http://www.safercar.gov/parents/RightSeat.htm. Last
accessed August 7, 2012. See also PRIA, pp. 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that there will be no lost sales due to the change in
the booster seat label. There are no boosters on the market sold only
for children from 30 to 40 lb. Boosters are sold for children with a
starting weight of 30 or 40 lb, to a maximum weight of 60, 70, 80 or
more pounds. Those that are sold for children with a starting weight of
30 lb will just be relabeled to have the minimum weight start at 40 lb.
Children riding in harnessed toddler seats will continue using the
toddler seat until they graduate to a booster seat at a minimum weight
of 40 lb. Similarly, combination seats that are sold for use with
younger children (with a harness) and older children (as a booster)
will continue to be marketed to the same children as before the rule.
The only change resulting from the new label would be that the booster
seat mode would not be recommended for use until the child reaches 40
lb. Comments are requested on this issue.
    We estimate that 36.7 non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1-5) to children in
rear-facing child restraints annually would be prevented by the
proposed requirements. In addition, 5.2 fatalities and 27.6 non-fatal
injuries to children in forward-facing child restraints annually would
be prevented by the proposed requirements. We have not estimated the
annual benefits for children in the weight range 13.6-18 kg (30-40 lb)
who are restrained in belt-positioning seats because we have not
estimated the countermeasures needed. However, we believe that the
benefits of belt-positioning seats with improved side impact protection
for children weighing 13.6-18 kg (30-40 lb) are very small since FARS
and NASS-CDS data files indicate very few injuries in side impact
crashes to this population of children in belt-positioning seats.\97\
The total benefits of this proposed rule would be 5.2 fatalities and 64
MAIS 1-5 injuries prevented, which amount to 18.3 equivalent lives
saved per year.\98\ The equivalent lives and the monetized benefits
were estimated in accordance with guidance issued February 28, 2013 by
the Office of the Secretary \99\ regarding the treatment of value of a
statistical life in regulatory analyses. The PRIA, available in the
docket for this NPRM, details the methodology for estimating costs,
benefits, and net benefits resulting from this proposed rule. The
monetized net benefits for this proposed rule were estimated to be
$178.9 million at 3 percent discount rate and $162.0 million at 7
percent discount rate in 2010 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ This is because only a small percentage of children in this
weight range are restrained in belt-positioning seats. A Safe Kids
USA survey in the first quarter of 2012 at Child Passenger Safety
Technician (CPST) seat check stations indicated that only 10 percent
of children in the weight range 13.6-18 kg (30-40 lb) were in belt-
positioning seats.
    \98\ This estimate assumes that the proposed changes will have
the same level of effectiveness in preventing injuries to children
in misused seats as estimated for children in properly used seats.
    \99\ http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency estimates that the cost of conducting the test described
in the proposed rule would be approximately $1,300. We estimate that 96
CRS models comprise the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually that are
subject to this NPRM. The subject CRSs are rear-facing CRSs, and
convertible, toddler, and combination CRSs designed for children
weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb). Of the 96 CRS models, 31 models are
infant seats, 50 models are convertible seats, and 15 models are
toddler and combination seats. The infant seats would involve one sled
test with the 12 MO CRABI, the convertible seats would involve 3 sled
tests (2 sled tests in the rear-facing mode with the 12 MO CRABI and
the Q3s and 1 sled test in forward-facing mode with the Q3s), and the
toddler and combination seats would involve 1 sled test with the Q3s.
Therefore, we estimate that, assuming manufacturers would be conducting
the dynamic test specified in the proposed rule (or a similar test) to
certify their child restraints to the new side impact requirements,
overall they would conduct 196 sled tests for the current 96 models
available in the market, for an annual testing cost of $254,800. This
testing cost, distributed among the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually,
with an average model life of 5 years, is less than $0.01 per CRS.

XVII. Effective Date

    The agency is proposing a lead time of 3 years from date of
publication of the final rule. This means that CRSs manufactured on or
after the date 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule
must meet the side impact requirements. We propose to permit optional
early compliance with the requirements beginning soon after the date of
publication of the final rule.
    Note that section 31501 of MAP-21 states that not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of the Act (which was July 6, 2012),
the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 regarding
side impact protection. Section 31505 of MAP-21 states that if the
Secretary determines that any deadline for issuing a final rule under
the Act cannot be met, the Secretary shall provide an explanation for
why such deadline cannot be met and establish a new deadline for the
rule.
    We believe there is good cause for providing 3 years lead time. CRS
manufacturers will have to gain familiarity with the new test
procedures and the new Q3s dummy, assess their products' conformance to
the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test, and possibly incorporate changes
into their designs. We believe that 3 years lead time would give
manufacturers sufficient time to design CRSs that comply with the side
impact requirements.

XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is considered
``significant'' and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
    The NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact
performance requirements for child restraint systems designed to seat
children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb).
The proposal would specify a side impact test in which the child
restraints must protect the occupant in a dynamic test simulating a
vehicle-to-vehicle side impact. The side impact test would be
additional to the current frontal impact tests of FMVSS No. 213.
    We estimate that the annual cost of the proposed rule would be

approximately $3.7 million. The countermeasures may include larger
wings (side structure) and padding with energy-absorption
characteristics that have a retail cost of approximately $0.50 per
CRS.\100\ We estimate that the proposed rule would prevent 5.2
fatalities and 64 MAIS 1-5 non-fatal injuries annually. The annual net
benefits are estimated to be $162.0 million (7 percent discount rate)
to $178.9 million (3 percent discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The agency believes that the cost of a compliance test
(estimated at $1,300) spread over the number of units sold of that
child restraint model is very small, especially when compared to the
price of a child restraint. We estimate that 96 CRS models comprise
the 5.5 million rear-facing CRSs and forward-facing convertible and
combination CRSs (designed for children weighing up to 18 kg (40
lb)) sold annually, which have an average model life of 5 years.
Therefore, the annual cost of testing new CRS models would be
$254,800. This testing cost distributed among the 5.5 million CRSs
sold annually would be less than $0.01 per CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this NPRM, NHTSA has considered HIC15
requirements of 400 and 800 as alternatives to the preferred proposal
of HIC15 = 570.\101\ The PRIA accompanying this NPRM
provides an assessment of benefits and costs of the HIC15 =
400 and 800 alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The agency analyzed different values for HIC15
because head injuries are the major cause of fatalities of children
in side impacts. Real word data of side impacts involving CRS-
restrained children indicate that 55-68 percent of MAIS 2+ injuries
are to the head, while only 22-29 percent are to the chest. We
determined that changes in the HIC15 injury threshold
would have a significantly higher effect on the benefit/costs
resulting from this rulemaking than would changes to the chest
deflection injury threshold. For this reason, alternatives to the
proposed chest deflection injury threshold (23 mm) were not
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the alternatives presented for HIC15, NHTSA's
preferred alternative is an injury threshold of 570. We tentatively
conclude that this threshold value achieves a reasonable balance of
practicability, safety, and cost. The HIC15 = 570 threshold
is used in FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' for the 3-
year-old child dummy. It is a scaled threshold based on FMVSS No. 208's
criterion for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, which was adjusted
to the 3-year-old using a process that accounts for differences in
geometric size and material strength. HIC15 of 570
corresponds to an 11 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury and a 1.6 percent
risk of fatality. We tentatively conclude that the 570 scaled maximum
would protect children in child restraints from an unreasonable risk of
fatality and serious injury in side impacts.
    Comparing the three alternatives (at the 7 percent discount rate),
we find that an 800 HIC15 limit results in: (a) Many fewer
equivalent lives saved than the proposed 570 HIC15 limit
(7.24 vs. 18.26); (b) higher cost per equivalent life saved ($488,000
vs. $242,000); and, (c) lower net benefits ($63 million vs. $162
million). Thus, on all three measures, 800 HIC15 appears
inferior to the proposed 570 HIC15.
    The 400 HIC15 alternative results in: (a) More
equivalent lives saved than the proposed 570 HIC15 limit
(28.87 vs. 18.26); higher cost per equivalent life saved ($314,000 vs.
$242,000); and, (c) higher net benefits ($250 million vs. $162
million). Thus, on two of the three measures, at first glance 400
HIC15 has appeal compared to the proposed 570
HIC15 limit.
    However, the agency's preferred alternative is 570 HIC15
because we are concerned about the effect of a 400 HIC15
limit on child restraint design and use. In the analysis we performed
for this NPRM, we assumed that padding alone would be insufficient to
meet a 400 HIC15 limit; we assumed that the 6 child
restraints we tested would need a theoretical kind of structural
improvement to the side of the seats to meet a 400 HIC15
limit. However, we have not proven out that the structural improvements
we assumed would in fact be enough to meet the 400 HIC15
limit. Thus, there is some uncertainty on the agency's part whether the
structural modifications can be implemented to meet the 400
HIC15 criterion at the cost we assumed.
    We also believe that another means of meeting a 400
HIC15 limit would be to increase the thickness of the
padding used in the child restraint. We are concerned that thicker
padding around the head area could reduce the space provided for the
child's head, which may make the child restraint seem, to parents and
other caregivers, too confining for the child. The restricted space for
the child's head could in fact reduce the ability of the seated child
to move his or her head freely. Those factors could affect
acceptability and use of the harness-equipped age-appropriate child
restraints by consumers. Alternatively, if manufacturers decided to
increase the thickness of the padding in the head area and widen the
CRS to retain the current space between the child's head and side
padding, the child restraint would have to be made wider and heavier.
Again, this might affect the overall use of the child restraint.
    Considering all of these factors, NHTSA has chosen 570
HIC15 as the best overall proposal with known consequences
that can be met with a reasonable thickness of padding alone.

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. Based on our fleet testing, we believe that
most of the CRSs that would be subject to the proposed side impact
requirements would meet the proposed requirements without a need to
modify the CRS. For rear-facing infant seats and forward-facing
restraints with harnesses that need to be modified, the agency
estimates that the average incremental costs to each child restraint
system would be only $0.50 per unit to meet the proposed rule. This
incremental cost would not constitute a significant economic impact.
Further, the incremental cost is not significant compared to the retail
price of a child restraint system for infants and toddlers, which is in
the range of $45 to $350. These incremental costs, which are very small
compared to the overall price of the child restraint, can ultimately be
passed on to the purchaser.
    For belt-positioning seats that do not meet the proposed side
impact requirements, the simplest course for a manufacturer would be to
re-label the restraint so that it is marketed for children not in a
weight class that would subject the CRS to the proposed requirements.
That is, the CRSs could be marketed as belt-positioning seats for
children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb), instead of for children
weighing above 13.6 kg (30 lb).\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Currently, FMVSS No. 213 prohibits manufacturers from
recommending belt-positioning seats for children weighing less than
13.6 kg (30 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency believes that the cost of conducting the test described
in the proposed rule (estimated at $1,300) spread over the number of
units sold of that child restraint model would be very small,
especially when compared to the

price of a child restraint. We estimate that 96 CRS models comprise the
7.42 million rear-facing CRSs and forward-facing convertible and
combination CRSs sold annually. The average model life is estimated to
be 5 years. Therefore, we estimate that, assuming manufacturers would
be conducting the dynamic test specified in the proposed rule (or a
similar test) to certify their child restraints to the new side impact
requirements, the annual cost of testing new CRS models would be
$254,800. This testing cost, distributed among the 7.42 million CRSs
sold annually with an average model life of 5 years, would be less than
$0.01 per CRS.

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 today's 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 Order 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
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
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 today's 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the PRA 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. In this notice of proposed
rulemaking, we propose no ``collections of information'' (as defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)(Public Law 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., materials 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 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    As explained above in this preamble, NHTSA reviewed the procedures
and

regulations developed globally to dynamically test child restraints in
the side impact environment. Except for the Takata test procedure, the
procedures and regulations did not replicate all of the dynamic
elements of a side crash that we sought to include in the side impact
test or were not sufficiently developed for further consideration.
    NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213
but did not find it acceptable, mainly because that it does not
simulate the intruding door, which we believe is an important component
in the side impact environment. In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not
account for a longitudinal component, which we also believe to be an
important characteristic of a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA's 2002
ANPRM, supra, was based on AS/NZS 1754. Commenters to the ANPRM
believed that a dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle
intrusion into the occupant compartment.) Australia's CREP test also
was limited by its lack of an intruding door, which is a component that
is important in the side impact environment.
    Germany's ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. While the
ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and intrusion
experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its limitations is
that the angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control,
which results in poor repeatability. In addition, these methods do not
include a longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which
is present in most side impacts and which, we believe, should be
replicated in the FMVSS No. 213 test. NHTSA considered the EU's test
procedure but decided not to pursue it, since the test is of lower
severity than the crash conditions we wanted to replicate and of lower
severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test of a small
passenger vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only intended for
evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX attachments, which are not available
on CRSs in the U.S. Further, the sliding anchors do not seem to produce
a representative interaction between the door and CRS during a side
impact, and may introduce variability in the test results. The NPACS
consumer program is still undergoing development and the details of the
sled test procedure and dummies are not available.
    We note that NHTSA has based the side impact test proposal on a
test procedure that was developed by Takata, a manufacturer in the
restraint industry. By so doing, NHTSA has saved agency resources by
making use of pertinent technical information that is already
available. We believe this effort to save resources is consistent with
the Act's goal of reducing when possible the agency's cost of
developing its own standards.

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, we have noted that we
have reviewed the procedures and regulations developed globally to test
child restraints dynamically in the side impact environment, and found
the Takata test procedure to be the most suitable for our purposes.
Comments are requested on the above policy statement and the
implications it has for this rulemaking.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. 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?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.

XIX. Public Participation

    In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed
rule. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule, but
request comments on specific issues throughout this document. Your
comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:

--Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
--Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
--If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the
estimate.
--Tell us which parts of the proposal you support, as well as those
with which you disagree.
--Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
--Offer specific alternatives.
--Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the
units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.
--Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your
comments.

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21).
We 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. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging
onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

    We 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, we will also consider comments that the
docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too
late for us to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that
one is issued), we 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, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend 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 (65 FR 19477-19478).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    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 paragraph (k)(5), and by revising
paragraph (l)(3), to read as follows:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) Drawing Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No.
213--Side impact No. NHTSA-213-2011,'' dated June 2012, into Sec.
571.213a.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, ``Instrumentation for Impact
Tests,'' revised June 1980, into Sec. Sec.  571.213; 571.213a; 571.218.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 571.213 is amended by adding paragraph S5(g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  571.213  Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S5 * * *
* * * * *
    (g) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in
motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds), shall meet the
requirements in this standard and the additional side impact protection
requirements in Standard No. 213a (Sec.  571.213a). Excepted from
Standard No. 213a are harnesses and car beds.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 571.213a is added to read as follows:

Sec.  571.213a  Standard No. 213a; Child restraint systems--side impact
protection.

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies side impact protection
requirements for child restraint systems recommended for children in a
weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (kg) ((40 pounds
(lb)).
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number
of children killed or injured in motor vehicle side impacts.
    S3. Application. This standard applies to add-on child restraint
systems, except for harnesses and car beds, that are recommended for
use by children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40
lb), or by children in a height range that includes children whose
height is not greater than 1100 millimeters.
    S4. Definitions.
    Add-on child restraint system means any portable child restraint
system.
    Belt-positioning seat means a child restraint system that positions
a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt
system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system
or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the
child's torso in a forward impact.
    Car bed means a child restraint system designed to restrain or
position a child in the supine or prone position on a continuous flat
surface.
    Child restraint anchorage system is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225
(Sec.  571.225).
    Child restraint system is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.
571.213).
    Contactable surface means any child restraint system surface (other
than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may
contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy,
specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance
with S6.1.
    Harness means a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint
system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps,
webbing or similar material, and that does not

include a rigid seating structure for the child.
    Rear-facing child restraint system means a child restraint system
that positions a child to face in the direction opposite to the normal
(forward) direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
    Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal line
through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1.
    Tether anchorage is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec.  571.225).
    Tether strap is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec.  571.225).
    Torso means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic
test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the
child restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of
the test dummy.
    S5. Requirements.
    (a) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall meet
the requirements in this section when, as specified, tested in
accordance with S6 and this paragraph. Each child restraint system
shall meet the requirements at each of the restraint's seat back angle
adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the
restraint is oriented in the forward or rearward direction recommended
by the manufacturer pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.  571.213),
and tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of this section.
    (b) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall also
meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213 (Sec.  571.213).
    S5.1 Dynamic performance.
    S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance
with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural
element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a
radius of less than 6 mm (\1/4\ inch) or surfaces with protrusions
greater than 9 mm (\3/8\ inch) above the immediate adjacent surrounding
contactable surface of any structural element of the child restraint
system.
    (b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same
adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately
before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2).
    (2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), a rear-facing child
restraint system may have a means for repositioning the seating surface
of the system that allows the system's occupant to move from a reclined
position to an upright position and back to a reclined position during
testing.
    (ii) No opening that is exposed and is larger than 6 mm (\1/4\
inch) before the testing shall become smaller during the testing as a
result of the movement of the seating surface relative to the child
restraint system as a whole.
    (c) If a front facing child restraint system, not allow the angle
between the system's back support surfaces for the child and the
system's seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion
of the test.
    S5.1.2 Injury criteria.
    When tested in accordance with S6.1 and with the test dummy
specified in S7, each child restraint system that, in accordance with
S5.5.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), is recommended for use by
children whose mass is more than 10 kg shall--
    (a) Limit the resultant acceleration at the location of the
accelerometer mounted in the test dummy head such that, for any two
points in time, t1 and t2, during the event which are separated by not
more than a 15 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less than t2,
the maximum calculated head injury criterion (HIC) shall not exceed
570, determined using the resultant head acceleration at the center of
gravity of the dummy head as expressed as a multiple of g (the
acceleration of gravity), calculated using the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.009

    (b) The maximum chest compression (or deflection) from the output
of the thoracic InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest
Compression (IR-TRACC) shall not exceed 23 millimeters.
    S5.1.3 Occupant containment. When tested in accordance with S6.1
and the requirements specified in this section, each child restraint
system recommended for use by children in a specified mass range that
includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not
greater than 10 kg (22 lb), shall retain the test dummy's head such
that there is no direct contact of the head to any part of the side
impact seat assembly described in S6.1.1(a).
    S5.1.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural
component within or underlying a contactable surface shall, with any
padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above
any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 9 mm
(\3/8\ inch) and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 6 mm (\1/4\
inch).
    S5.1.5 Belt buckle release. Any buckle in a child restraint system
belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall:
    (a) When tested in accordance with the appropriate sections of
S6.2, after the dynamic test of S6.1, release when a force of not more
than 71 N is applied.
    (b) Not release during the testing specified in S6.1.
    S6. Test conditions and procedures.
    S6.1 Dynamic side impact test for child restraint systems.
    The test conditions and test procedure for the dynamic side impact
test are specified in S6.1.1 and S6.1.2, respectively.
    S6.1.1 Test conditions.
    (a) Test device.
    (1) The test device is a side impact seat assembly (SISA)
consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat, with one seating
position, and a simulated door assembly as described in Drawing
Package, ``NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213--Side impact No.
NHTSA-213-2011,'' dated June 2012 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
571.5). The simulated door assembly is rigidly attached to the floor of
the SISA and the simulated vehicle bench seat is mounted on rails to
allow it to move relative to the floor of the SISA in the direction
perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA is mounted on a dynamic test
platform so that the SORL of the seat is 10 degrees from the
perpendicular direction of the test platform travel. The SISA is
rotated counterclockwise if the impact side is on the left of the
seating position and clockwise if the impact side is on the right of
the seating position.
    (2) As illustrated in the SISA drawing package, attached to the
SISA is a child restraint anchorage system conforming to the
specifications of Standard No. 225 (Sec.  571.225).
    (b) Accelerate the test platform to achieve a relative velocity
(V0) of 31.3  0.8 km/h in the direction
perpendicular to the SORL between the SISA bench seat and the door
assembly at the time they come in contact (time = T0). The
front face of the armrest on the door is 32  2 mm from the
edge of the seat towards the SORL at time = T0. The test
platform velocity in the direction perpendicular to the SORL is not
greater than V0 and not less than V0 - 1 km/h
during the time of interaction of the door with the child restraint
system.
    (c) The change in velocity of the bench seat is 31.3
1.0 km/h and the bench seat acceleration perpendicular to

the SORL is within the corridor shown in Figure 3.
    (d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient
temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
    (e) The child restraint shall meet the requirements of S5 at each
of its seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing
positions, when the restraint is oriented in the direction recommended
by the manufacturer (e.g., forward or rearward) pursuant to S5.5 of
Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), and tested with the test dummy
specified in S7 of this section.
    S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.
    (a) The child restraint centerline is positioned 300 mm from the
SISA bench seat edge (impact side) and attached in any of the following
manners.
    (1) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard
No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), except as provided in this paragraph. For
forward-facing restraints, attach the tether strap, if provided, to the
tether anchorage on the SISA. No other supplemental device to attach
the child restraint is used. Tighten belt systems used to attach the
restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N
and not more than 67 N.
    (2) For rear-facing restraints, install the child restraint system
using only the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device) is used.
Tighten belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench
seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N.
    (3) For belt-positioning seats, use the lap and shoulder belt and
no tether or any other supplemental device.
    (b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing child restraint
systems for use by children of the heights and weights for which the
system is recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213
(Sec.  571.213). The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared as
specified in S8 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.
    (c) The dummy is placed and positioned in the child restraint
system as specified in S9. Attach the child restraint belts used to
restrain the child within the system, if appropriate, as specified in
S9.
    (d) Belt adjustment. Shoulder and pelvic belts that directly
restrain the dummy are adjusted as follows: Tighten the belt system
used to restrain the child within the child restraint system to a
tension of not less than 9 N on the webbing at the top of each dummy
shoulder and the pelvic region. Tighten the belt systems used to attach
the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5
N and not more than 67 N. For belt-positioning seats, the lap portion
of the lap and shoulder belt is tightened to a tension of not less than
53.5 N and not more than 67 N. The shoulder portion is tightened to a
tension of not less than 9 N and not more than 18 N.
    (e) Accelerate the test platform in accordance with S6.1.1(b).
    (f) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with
SAE J211 JUN80 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5).
    S6.2 Buckle release test procedure.
    (a) After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and before
the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each wrist and
ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of
Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), without disturbing the belted dummy
and the child restraint system.
    (b) Pull the sling that is tied to the dummy restrained in the
child restraint system and apply the following force: 90 N for a system
tested with a 12-month-old dummy; 200 N for a system tested with a 3-
year-old dummy. For an add-on child restraint, the force is applied in
the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213)
and by pulling the sling horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the
SISA.
    (c) While applying the force specified in S6.2 (b), and using the
device shown in Figure 8 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213) for
pushbutton-release buckles, apply the release force in the manner and
location specified in S6.2.1, for that type of buckle. Measure the
force required to release the buckle.
    S7 Test dummies. (Subparts referenced in this section are of part
572 of this chapter.)
    S7.1 Dummy selection. At NHTSA's option, any dummy specified in
S7.1(a) or S7.1(b) may be selected for testing child restraint systems
for use by children of the height and mass for which the system is
recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213). A child restraint that meets the criteria in two or more of
the following paragraphs may be tested with any of the test dummies
specified in those paragraphs.
    (a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 10 kg (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 850 mm, is
tested with a 12-month-old test dummy (CRABI) conforming to part 572
subpart R.
    (b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 10 kg (22 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb),
or by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is
tested with a 3-year-old test dummy (Q3s) conforming to part 572
subpart W.
    S8 Dummy clothing and preparation.
    S8.1 Type of clothing.
    (a) 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R). When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part
572, subpart R, is clothed in a cotton-polyester based tight fitting
sweat shirt with long sleeves and ankle long pants whose combined
weight is not more than 0.25 kg.
    (b) 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart
W). When used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49
CFR part 572, subpart W, is clothed as specified in that subpart,
except without shoes.
    S8.2 Preparing dummies. Before being used in testing under this
standard, test dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature
from 20.6[deg] to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative humidity from 10
percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours.
    S9 Positioning the dummy and attaching the belts used to restrain
the child within the child restraint system and/or to attach the system
to the SISA bench seat.
    S9.1 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R).
Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child
positioning that the manufacturer provided with the child restraint
system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213),
while conforming to the following:
    (a) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the 12-
month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the
dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the system. Attach all
appropriate child

restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint
system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all
appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA
bench seat and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
    (b) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the
dummy's arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm downward
toward the dummy's lower body until the arm contacts a surface of the
child restraint system or the SISA. Ensure that no arm is restrained
from movement in other than the downward direction, by any part of the
system or the belts used to anchor the system to the SISA bench seat.
    (c) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the
arms of the 12-month-old test dummy as far as possible in the upward
vertical direction. Extend the legs of the test dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat square
surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of 178 N,
perpendicular to the plane of the back of the standard seat assembly,
first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the
midsagittal plane of the dummy. Attach all appropriate child restraint
belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and
tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts
used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA bench seat and
tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c), rotate each dummy
limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane
until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the
standard seat assembly. Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb
placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in tests conducted
under S6.
    S9.2 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart
W) in forward-facing child restraints. Position the test dummy
according to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint
manufacturer provided with the child restraint system in accordance
with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), while
conforming to the following:
    (a) Holding the test dummy torso upright until it contacts the
child restraint system's design seating surface, place the test dummy
in the seated position within the child restraint system with the
midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of
the child restraint system.
    (b) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the
upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
    (c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square
millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the
back of the SISA first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy
thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. For a child restraint
system with a fixed or movable surface, position each movable surface
in accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer provided
under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213). For
forward-facing restraints, attach all appropriate child restraint belts
used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and
tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts
used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA or to restrain
the child and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. For belt-positioning
seats, attach all appropriate vehicle belts used to restrain the child
within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in
S6.1.2(d).
    (c) After the steps specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the
child restraint or the SISA. Rotate each of the dummy's arms downwards
in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm is
positioned at a 25 degree angle with respect to the thorax.
    S9.3 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart
W) in rear-facing child restraints. Position the test dummy according
to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint
manufacturer provided with the child restraint system in accordance
with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213), while
conforming to the following:
    (a) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the
upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as
possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet
perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs.
    (b) Place the Q3s dummy in the child restraint system so that the
back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the
system. Place the test dummy in the child restraint system with the
midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of
the child restraint system. Rotate each of the dummy's legs downwards
in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the leg or
feet of the dummy contacts the seat back of the SISA or a surface of
the child restraint system.
    (c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square
millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the
back of the SISA bench seat first against the dummy crotch and then at
the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. For a child
restraint system with a fixed or movable surface, position each movable
surface in accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer
provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.  571.213).
Attach all appropriate child restraint belts for use to restrain a
child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified
in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child
restraint system to the SISA and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.
    (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's
midsagittal plane until the limb is positioned at a 25 degree angle
with respect to the thorax.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.013

    Issued on: January 22, 2014.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-01568 Filed 1-23-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P