[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69388-69459]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21477]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 212

November 2, 2020

Part II

 Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before
coming.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate
comment tracking and response, the agency encourages commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their organization; however,
submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters
identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9322 before coming. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:
202-366-6345) (fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (fax:
202-366-3820). Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
    a. Background
    b. Overview of this NPRM and Request for Comment
II. Statutory Mandate
    a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle
Safety Act'')
    b. MAP-21
    c. NHTSA's Views
III. Updating the Representative Seat Assembly
    a. Background on This Proposed Seat Assembly
    b. Consistency with the Side Impact Bench
    c. Seat Geometry
    1. Seat Back Angle
    2. Seat Pan Angle
    3. Seat Pan Length
    4. Seat Back Height
    5. Rear Seat Cushions
    i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion
    ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat Cushion
    iii. The Foam is Suitable for Use in the Standard's Dynamic Test
    iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam
    v. Summary of Seat Assembly Features
    6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features
    d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations
    e. Child Restraint Anchorage System Locations
IV. Installing CRSs with a Type 2 Belt Rather Than a Type 1 Belt
V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor
VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash Pulse
    a. Introduction
    b. Safety Need--Crash Data Analysis
    c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files
    d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30 MPH Test Speed
    e. Sled Testing of CRSs
    f. Agency Decision
VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New Seat Assembly Designs
    a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly Design (V1)
    b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly Design (V2)
VIII. Communicating with Today's Parents
    a. CRS Owner Registration
    1. Background
    2. Overview
    3. Proposed Changes to the Registration Program
    i. Information Card
    ii. Mail-in Card
    iii. Electronic Registration Form
    iv. Information on Labels and in Owners' Manuals
    b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs
    1. Removing Requirements for Specific Wording
    2. Labeling of Use Information
    3. Deleting S5.5.2(k)(2)
    4. Other Requests of Evenflo and Safe Ride News Petition
IX. Streamlining NHTSA's Use of ATDs in Compliance Tests to Reflect
CRS Use Today
    a. Introduction
    b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 10-13.6 kg (22-30 lb)
    c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 13.6-18.2 kg (30-40 lb)

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

I. Executive Summary

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

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

a. Background

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

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

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

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

b. Overview of this NPRM and Request for Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The proposed changes to the labeling requirements would have
minimal or no cost impacts, as mostly they are deregulatory.
Manufacturers would be given the flexibility to provide required
information in statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
at locations that they deem most effective. Manufacturers may provide
the recommended child weight and height ranges for the use of CRSs in a
specific installation mode on existing voluntary labels by simply
changing the minimum child weight limit values. Since no additional
information would be required on the labels by this NPRM, the size of
the label would not need to be increased. Thus, there would be minimal
or no additional cost for the

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

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

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

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

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

II. Statutory Authority

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

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

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

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

b. MAP-21

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

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

c. NHTSA's Views

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

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

III. Updating the Representative Seat Assembly

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

a. Background on This Proposed Seat Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Consistency with the Proposal for the Side Impact Bench

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Seat Geometry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.010

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.011

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

e. Child Restraint Anchorage System Locations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash Pulse

a. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Safety Need--Crash Data Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. Sled Testing of CRSs

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f. Agency Decision

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

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

a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly Design (V1)

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

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

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

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

    \75\ A combination CRS is a type of forward-facing car seat that