is used with an internal harness system to secure a child. With
removal of the internal harness, it can be used as a belt-
positioning booster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.015

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.016

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.017

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.019

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

b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly Design (V2)

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.020

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.024

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

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

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

VIII. Communicating With Today's Parents

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

a. CRS Owner Registration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \86\ See S5.5.2(m) and S5.5.5(k).
    \87\ See S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02NO20.028

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f. Table Summarizing Proposed Amendments

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

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

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

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

XI. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising From Research Findings

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

    \121\ ``Submarining'' refers to the tendency for a restrained
occupant to slide forward feet first under the lap belt during a
vehicle crash, which could result in serious abdominal, pelvic, and
spinal injuries.
    \122\ Reports documenting vehicle crash tests using inflatable
and shield-type CRSs are available in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Inflatable booster seats: Transport Canada conducted 25-30 mph
frontal impact crash tests of different vehicle models, with the HIII-
6YO and HIII-10YO dummies restrained in inflatable boosters in rear
seats. In the tests, the dummies experienced significant submarining
due to excessive compression of the inflatable booster during the crash
event. Booster seats sold in Canada are required to compress by not
more than 25 mm when subjected to a 2,250 N quasi-static compression
force. Inflatable booster seats cannot meet the requirements of this
quasi-static compression test and so inflatable boosters are not sold
in Canada. Comments are requested on the findings of the research crash
tests conducted in Canada, on the booster seat compression test
requirements in Canada, and on the safety need to have a compression
test in FMVSS No. 213.
    (b) Shield-only-CRSs: Shield-only-CRSs only have a shield to
restrain a young child's upper torso, lower torso, and crotch. While
such CRSs are currently not available in the U.S., there are a wide
variety of shield-only-CRSs in Europe intended for children weighing
less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Child dummies (representing children aged
18-months old and 3-years-old) restrained in shield-only-CRSs in
simulated vehicle rollover tests, 64 km/h (40 mph) offset frontal
impact vehicle crash tests, and in 64 km/h (40 mph) Allgemeiner
Deutsher Automobil-Club (ADAC) type frontal impact sled tests were
completely or partially ejected from the CRSs. These test results raise
concern about the ability of a shield-only-CRS to retain small children
in the CRS in certain crashes or in a rollover. NHTSA seeks comment on
the findings of these research tests. Should FMVSS No. 213 require
shield-only-CRSs to have additional shoulder belts and a crotch strap,
similar to the requirements for child restraints that have belts
designed to restrain the child (S<IP_ADDRESS>)?
    2. NHTSA requests information on a matter showing up in the field
concerning children under 1YO outgrowing infant carriers by height much
earlier than by weight. Research studies conducted at UMTRI \123\ show
that some infant carriers marketed as suitable for children up to 13.6
kg (30 lb), which is greater than the weight of a 95th percentile 1 YO
and an average 1.5 YO, cannot ``fit'' the height of a 95th percentile 1
YO or an average 1.5 YO.\124\ NHTSA believes that infant carriers'
height and weight recommendations should better match the children for
whom the CRS is recommended. NHTSA seeks comment on UMTRI's research
findings regarding how current infant carriers fit children that they
are designed for. Should infant carriers' height and weight
recommendations better match up to better accommodate the children for
whom the CRS is recommended?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Manary. M., et al., ``Comparing the CRABI-12 and CRABI-18
for Infant Child Restraint System Evaluation.'' June 2015. DOT HS
812 156. The report is available in the docket for this NPRM.
    \124\ Field experience indicates that children at the higher end
of growth charts typically outgrow the carriers by height at around
9-10 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. NHTSA has supported the development of computer models of
children of different weights and heights to assist CRS manufacturers
in designing child restraints that better fit the children for whom the
CRS is recommended.\125\ These virtual models are available to the
public to improve the fit of CRSs to children.\126\ NHTSA requests
comments from manufacturers and other parties on whether they used the
models and whether the models were helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ NHTSA has sponsored an UMTRI project developing toddler
virtual dummies for use in improving of the fit of CRSs to child
passengers. Information on a 2015 UMTRI workshop describing
development of the toddler virtual fit dummies can be found at:
http://umtri.umich.edu/our-results/projects/umtri-workshop-new-tools-child-occupant-protection.
    \126\ Toddler virtual models available for download at: http://childshape.org/toddler/manikins/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Proposed Lead Time

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

XIII. Corrections and Other Minor Amendments

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

a. Correct Reference

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

b. Section <IP_ADDRESS>

    The Agency is removing and reserving S<IP_ADDRESS> because it applies to
CRSs manufactured before August 1, 2005 and so is no longer applicable.

c. Table to S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and Test Configuration II

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

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

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

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

d. Updating Reference to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1

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

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

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    \133\ Preliminary tests with the proposed standard seat assembly
using an average 23.3 g peak acceleration pulse and an average 47.5
km/h (29.5 mph) velocity within the FMVSS No. 213 acceleration
corridor showed dummy HIC and chest accelerations in some booster
seats, tested with the HIII-6YO and HIII-10YO dummies, near or
exceeding allowable threshold levels. While NHTSA expects that some
booster seats may need to be redesigned to meet the performance
measures when tested with a higher acceleration pulse, these
redesigns could be accomplished without additional material cost.
For example, different foams could be used in the CRS seating
cushions that work better with the proposed stiffer standard seat
cushion foam to lower the HIC and chest g values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that a lead time of three years is sufficient for
the redesign. The Agency has not estimated a cost of this redesign,
assuming the redesign could be incorporated into a typical business
model involving manufacturers refining child restraint designs to
freshen their product lines. The refinements result in new product
offerings that appeal to consumers and help manufacturers remain
competitive.
    There would be costs involved in changing the standard seat
assembly used by NHTSA to assess CRS compliance. Manufacturers are not
required to use the standard seat assembly, but as a practical matter
they usually choose to do so, to test their CRSs as similarly to the
tests conducted by NHTSA. The one-time cost of the updated standard
seat assembly sled

buck is about $8,000. If a manufacturer chooses to build the assembly
itself or uses one at an independent test facility, either way there
would be minimal cost impacts when the cost of the assembly and testing
CRSs is distributed among the hundreds of thousands of CRSs that would
be sold by each manufacturer.
Labeling and Owner Registration
    The Agency believes that the proposed updates to the labeling
requirements would benefit safety by reducing the premature graduation
of children from rear-facing CRSs to forward-facing CRSs, and from
forward-facing CRSs to booster seats. The Agency estimates 1.9 to 6.3
lives would be saved and 2.6 to 8.7 moderate-to-critical severity
injuries would be prevented annually by aligning FMVSS No. 213's use
instructions with current best practices on transporting children.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed changes to the labeling requirements would have
minimal or no cost impacts, as mostly they are deregulatory.
Manufacturers would be given the flexibility to provide required
information in statements or a combination of statements and pictograms
at locations that they deem most effective. Manufacturers may provide
the recommended child weight and height ranges for the use of CRSs in a
specific installation mode on existing voluntary labels by simply
changing the minimum child weight limit values. Since no additional
information would be required on the labels by this NPRM, the size of
the label would not need to be increased. Thus, there would be minimal
or no additional cost for the label. There would also be no decrease in
sales of forward-facing car safety seats or of booster seats as a
result of the proposal to raise the minimum child weight limit values
for forward-facing CRSs and booster seats. Most forward-facing CRSs
cover a wide child weight range, so the labeling changes would only
affect how consumers use the products and not the sale of them. For
example, consumers would still purchase forward-facing car safety seats
but would wait to use them forward-facing until the child is at least
1. They would still purchase convertible CRSs, but will delay turning
the child forward-facing until the child is at least 1. Consumers would
still purchase booster seats, but would use them only from when the
child reaches 18.2 kg (40 lb).
    The proposed changes to the registration program generally lessen
restrictions and are optional for manufacturers to implement. These
proposed changes to the registration card would provide flexibility to
manufacturers in how they communicate with consumers and would likely
help improve registration rates and recall completion rates. NHTSA
cannot quantify the benefits at this time.
    NHTSA estimates there would be no costs associated with the
proposed changes. While the changes could affect the collection of
information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (which is discussed
later in this section), there would be no additional material cost
associated with the proposed changes to the registration card or to the
CRS label or owner manual pertaining to registration. Manufacturers
could use the same card and labels and just change the wording on them.
ATDs
    The proposed updates of how ATDs are used in the sled test for
assessing CRS performance better accords with current CRS designs and
best practices for transporting child passengers compared to the
current specifications in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot quantify the
possible safety benefits at this time.
    Some of the proposed changes lessen testing burdens by reducing the
extent of testing with ATDs. For example, the NPRM proposes that CRSs
for children weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) would no longer be
subject to testing with the HIII-3YO dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction
in testing cost of $540,000 for the current number of infant carrier
models in the market.\135\ Also, CRSs for children weighing 13.6-18.2
kg (30-40 lb) would no longer be tested with the CRABI-12MO. However,
the Agency does not expect any reduction in testing costs from this
latter modification since all CRSs with internal harnesses are sold for
children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), and so would still be
subject to testing with the CRABI-12MO in that regard. The proposed
positioning procedure for the legs of the HIII-3YO dummy in rear-facing
CRSs is unlikely to have cost implications because the procedure is the
same as that currently used by manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ There are currently 45 infant carrier models with
recommended upper weight limit exceeding 10 kg (22 lb). Each rear-
facing CRS is tested in three different configurations on the
standard seat assembly with each dummy used for testing the CRS: (1)
CRS installed using seat belts, (2) CRS installed using the lower
anchors and no tether, and (3) CRS installed without the base using
the lower anchors and no tether. The cost of a sled test is
estimated at $4,000. Therefore, the cost savings by not testing the
45 infant carrier models using the HIII-3YO dummy is estimated to be
$540,000 (= $4,000 x 3 x 45). Since manufacturers typically conduct
more than one test in each of the CRS installation configurations,
NHTSA expects the actual cost savings to be greater than the
estimated $540,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, NHTSA believes that testing CRSs solely with the HIII-
6YO rather than the H2-6YO dummy would not have significant cost
implications. This is because there would be little or no design
changes needed for the CRSs due to this proposed update since nearly
all the CRSs tested with the HIII-6YO in the proposed standard seat
assembly complied with all the FMVSS No. 213 requirements.\136\ NHTSA's
testing also showed that CRSs that currently comply with FMVSS No. 213
using the H2-6YO dummy also met all the performance requirements in the
standard when tested using the HIII-6YO dummy in the proposed standard
seat assembly. In addition, manufacturers are increasingly certifying
at least some of their CRS models for older children using the HIII-6YO
dummy rather than the H2-6YO and so most manufacturers already have
access to the HIII-6YO dummy and would not need to purchase the dummy
as a result of this proposed update. Most CRS manufacturers hire
commercial test labs to test their CRSs for conformance with FMVSS No.
213 requirements. These labs already have the HIII-6YO dummy since some
of their CRS manufacturer clients currently want to certify their CRSs
based on tests with the HIII-6YO dummy. Thus, there would not be a cost
increase to purchase and test with the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Of 21 tests with the HIII-6YO in the proposed seat
assembly, all passed the performance metrics, except for one that
failed head excursion limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

manufactured for exclusive use on school bus seats would allow the sale
of these products. The Agency estimates there would be no cost impacts
associated with the proposed changes because the amendment would permit
more products to be sold for school bus use. The benefits of the
proposed changes are associated with the popularity of such CRSs in the
pupil transportation industry for transporting preschool and special-
needs children. However, NHTSA cannot quantify these benefits at this
time.
Executive Order 13771
    Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an
executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule
under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the
offset requirements of 13771.
    This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action because NHTSA believes it would reduce the cost of complying
with NHTSA's requirements. The proposed rule would amend FMVSS No. 213
to update the standard seat assembly and reduce costs by eliminating
unnecessary or outdated requirements, such as unnecessary testing of
infant carriers with the 3YO dummy. The proposal to eliminate
unnecessary testing with the 3YO test dummy would result in a reduction
in testing costs of $540,000 for the current number of infant carrier
models in the market. Removing the restrictions in the owner
registration program will enable manufacturers to interact with
consumers using modern methods of communication, which should encourage
design innovation and productivity. Proposals to update labels and
owners' manuals would not increase costs, as manufacturers would be
replacing current labels and manuals with updated versions. NHTSA
estimates that virtually all CRSs made in the U.S. would meet FMVSS No.
213's performance requirements on the proposed seat assembly.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this
certification.
    I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA
estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of
which are small businesses. Even if there were a small CRS
manufacturer, the impacts of this proposed rule would not be
significant. NHTSA believes that virtually all CRSs would meet FMVSS
No. 213's requirements on the new seat assembly without modification.
Manufacturers may need to change the labels on their child restraints
pursuant to the proposed requirements, but the changes are minor and
would entail switching out values on current labels.
National Environmental Policy Act
    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would not
have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law
causes of action. The Agency's ability to announce its conclusion
regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort
litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the
language

and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed
rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, would
prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule would preempt State tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by this proposed rule. Establishment of a higher
standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum
standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any
implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
Civil Justice Reform
    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    Under the National Technology Transfer and dvancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the SAE International (SAE). The NTTAA
directs agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. NHTSA searched for but did not find voluntary
consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments proposed in
this NPRM, other than the minor proposal to update the reference to SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1 to the March 1995 version.
    However, consistent with the NTTAA, NHTSA reviewed the procedures
and regulations developed globally to test child restraints dynamically
and found areas of common ground.\137\ While there is no single
procedure or regulation of another country that sufficiently replicates
frontal crashes occurring in the U.S., the agency considered various
aspects of international regulations pertaining to the testing of child
restraint systems. NHTSA analyzed aspects of the seating assemblies
used by NPACS, ECE R.44 and Transport Canada's CMVSS No. 213 and the
frontal test speeds used worldwide in sled tests. NHTSA proposes a
requirement to test CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts, which is
consistent with CMVSS No. 213. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the
provisions would increase CRS safety, and would promote harmonization
of our countries' regulatory approaches in testing CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ The NTTAA seeks to support efforts by the Federal
government to ensure that agencies work with their regulatory
counterparts in other countries to address common safety issues.
Circular No. A-119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and
Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities,'' January 27, 2016, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2010
results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 = 1.36). This NPRM would not
result in a cost of $136 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this
NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)
    The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:

    The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.

    NHTSA requests public comment on the ``regulatory approaches taken
by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking. In the discussion above on the NTTAA, NHTSA has noted that
it has reviewed the procedures and regulations developed by Transport
Canada regarding testing CRSs with Type 2 (3-point) seat belts, and
tentatively agrees with the merits of the CMVSS No. 213 provision.
Comments are requested on the above policy statement and the
implications it has for this rulemaking.
    If you have any responses to these questions, please write to NHTSA
with your views.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Before seeking OMB
approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day public comment period
and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each collection of information requirement. NHTSA believes
the proposed changes to the owner registration program (571.213, S5.8)
constitute changes to a ``collection of information'' requirement for
child restraint system manufacturers. NHTSA is providing a 60-day
comment period on reporting burdens and other matters associated with
the proposal.
    OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in
the request for comment document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper

performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
    The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
    How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected;
    How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.'' OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals and Households.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    Child restraint manufacturers are required to provide an owner
registration card for purchasers of child restraint systems in
accordance with title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part
571, section 213, ``Child restraint systems.'' The registration card is
required to be perforated into two parts. The top part (information
part) contains a message and suitable instructions to be retained by
the purchaser. The size, font, color, and layout of the top part are
currently prescribed in Figures 9a and 9b,\138\ as is the attachment
method (fold/perforation) of the information card to the lower part of
the form (the mail-in card). The top part of the registration card sets
forth: (a) Prescribed wording advising the consumer of the importance
of registering; (b) prescribed instructions on how to register; and (c)
prescribed statements that the mail-in card is pre-addressed and that
postage is already paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Prescribed in FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems.''
As discussed in this preamble, this NPRM proposes to relieve some of
those restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bottom part (the mail-in card) is to be returned to the
manufacturer by the purchaser. The bottom part includes prepaid return
postage, the pre-printed name/address of the manufacturer, the pre-
printed model and date of manufacture, and spaces for the purchaser to
fill in his/her name and address. Optionally, child restraint
manufacturers are permitted to add to the registration form: (a)
Specified statements informing CRS owners that they may register
online; (b) the internet address for registering with the company; (c)
revisions to statements reflecting use of the internet to register; and
(d) a space for the consumer's email address.
    Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide printed
instructions with new CRSs, with step-by-step information on how the
restraint is to be used, and a permanently attached label that gives
``quick look'' information on matters such as use instructions and
information on registering the CRS.
    Under this NPRM, the Agency is proposing to amend the requirements
that prescribe wording advising the consumer of the importance of
registering and instructing how to register. NHTSA proposes to stop
prescribing the wording. Instead, CRS manufacturers would be given
leeway to use their own words to convey the importance of registering
the CRS and to instruct how registration is achieved. NHTSA would allow
statements instructing consumers to use electronic (or any other means)
of registering, as long as instructions are provided on using the paper
card for registering (including that the mail-in card is pre-addressed
and that the postage is pre-paid). NHTSA also proposes to permit or
possibly require a statement that the information collected through the
registration process will not be used by the manufacturer for any
purpose other than contacting the consumer in the event of a recall.
    The Agency also proposes to remove restrictions on manufacturers on
their use of size, font, color, layout, and attachment method of the
information card portion. NHTSA proposes to continue a current
provision that prohibits any other information unrelated to the
registration of the CRS, such as advertising or warranty information.
    If the proposed changes to the information card are adopted, NHTSA
anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated with the
revised information card, labels and owner's manuals. Child restraint
manufacturers produce, on average, a total of approximately 15,000,000
child restraints per year. NHTSA estimates there are 29 CRS
manufacturers with 159 distinct CRS models.
    The hour burden associated with the revised label consists of the
child restraint manufacturer: (a) Designing the information card with
statements to instruct how to register, encourage registration and
optionally, how to register electronically and how the submitted
information will be used; and (b) updating this information on the
existing information card, label and instruction manual. NHTSA assumes
for purposes of this NPRM analysis that each manufacturer would design
the registration information on the information card, label and manuals
5 times per year, whether it is to use different registration cards
designs in different CRS models or to adapt the design to improve
registrations. The Agency estimates 50 hours of additional burden per
child restraint manufacturer for the designing of the registration card
(information card portion), labels and manuals that no longer have
prescribed text (50 hours x 5 designs/year x 29 CRS manufacturers =
7,250 hours annually).
    Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 7,250 hours.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of
information technology.
    You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number
above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at (202) 366-
9826. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which
a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB

clearance number. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of
the comment be provided. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Regulation Identifier Number
    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Regulatory Information