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

69388

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0093]

RIN 2127–AL34

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Systems,

Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY

: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION

: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); request for comment.

SUMMARY

: In accordance with the

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century Act (MAP–21), this document

proposes to amend Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ by

updating the standard seat assembly on

which child restraint systems (CRSs) are

tested to determine their compliance

with the standard’s dynamic

performance requirements. This NPRM

proposes other amendments to

modernize FMVSS No. 213, including a

lessening of restrictions in some of the

standard’s owner registration and

labeling requirements, to give

manufacturers more flexibility in

communicating with today’s parents for

the purposes of increasing owner

registrations for recall notification

purposes and increasing the correct use

of CRSs, respectively. NHTSA is also

proposing ways to streamline the

Agency’s use of test dummies to assess

restraint performance, including

simplifying the standard’s compliance

tests to make them more reflective of the

real-world use of CRSs today. The

purpose of these and other proposals is

to modernize the seat assembly and

other aspects of FMVSS No. 213, to help

ensure the continued effectiveness of

CRSs in current and future vehicles.

DATES

: Comments must be received on

or before January 4, 2021.

Proposed effective date: 180 days after

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register.

Proposed compliance date: Three

years following the date of publication

of a final rule in the Federal Register,

with optional early compliance

permitted.

ADDRESSES

: You may submit comments

to the docket number identified in the

heading of this document by any of the

following methods:

•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

online instructions for submitting

comments.

•Mail: Docket Management Facility,

M–30, U.S. Department of

Transportation, West Building, Ground

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

•Hand Delivery or Courier: West

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 366–9332

before coming.

•Fax: 202–493–2251.

Regardless of how you submit your

comments, please mention the docket

number of this document.

Instructions: For detailed instructions

on submitting comments and additional

information on the rulemaking process,

see the Public Participation heading of

the Supplementary Information section

of this document. Note that all

comments received will be posted

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5

U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments

from the public to better inform its

decision-making process. DOT posts

these comments, without edit, including

any personal information the

commenter provides, to

www.regulations.gov, as described in

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at

www.transportation.gov/privacy. In

order to facilitate comment tracking and

response, the agency encourages

commenters to provide their name, or

the name of their organization; however,

submission of names is completely

optional. Whether or not commenters

identify themselves, all timely

comments will be fully considered.

Docket: For access to the docket to

read background documents or

comments received, go to

www.regulations.gov, or the street

address listed above. To be sure

someone is there to help you, please call

(202) 366–9322 before coming. Follow

the online instructions for accessing the

dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: For

technical issues, you may call Cristina

Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness

Standards (telephone: 202–366–6345)

(fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues,

you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of

Chief Counsel (telephone: 202–366–

2992) (fax: 202–366–3820). Address:

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE, West Building, Washington,

DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

I. Executive Summary

a. Background

b. Overview of this NPRM and Request for

Comment

II. Statutory Mandate

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’)

b. MAP–21

c. NHTSA’s Views

III. Updating the Representative Seat

Assembly

a. Background on This Proposed Seat

Assembly

b. Consistency with the Side Impact Bench

c. Seat Geometry

1. Seat Back Angle

2. Seat Pan Angle

3. Seat Pan Length

4. Seat Back Height

5. Rear Seat Cushions

i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion

ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat Cushion

iii. The Foam is Suitable for Use in the

Standard’s Dynamic Test

iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam

v. Summary of Seat Assembly Features

6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features

d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations

e. Child Restraint Anchorage System

Locations

IV. Installing CRSs with a Type 2 Belt Rather

Than a Type 1 Belt

V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor

VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash Pulse

a. Introduction

b. Safety Need—Crash Data Analysis

c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files

d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30 MPH

Test Speed

e. Sled Testing of CRSs

f. Agency Decision

VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New Seat

Assembly Designs

a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly Design

(V1)

b. Proposed Standard Seat Assembly

Design (V2)

VIII. Communicating with Today’s Parents

a. CRS Owner Registration

1. Background

2. Overview

3. Proposed Changes to the Registration

Program

i. Information Card

ii. Mail-in Card

iii. Electronic Registration Form

iv. Information on Labels and in Owners’

Manuals

b. Information on Correctly Using CRSs

1. Removing Requirements for Specific

Wording

2. Labeling of Use Information

3. Deleting S5.5.2(k)(2)

4. Other Requests of Evenflo and Safe Ride

News Petition

IX. Streamlining NHTSA’s Use of ATDs in

Compliance Tests to Reflect CRS Use

Today

a. Introduction

b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 10–

13.6 kg (22–30 lb)

c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing

13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69389

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

1

Currently, FMVSS No. 213 only permits a type

of school bus ‘‘harness.’’ The proposed amendments

would permit designs other than harnesses for this

type of CRS.

2

See 49 CFR 571.225.

3

There is also a 32 km/h (20 mph) test

configuration for CRSs that have a certain type of

torso restraint to ensure that the CRSs provide at

least a minimum level of protection when the torso

restraint is misused. See FMVSS No. 213

S6.1.1(b)(2), ‘‘Test Configuration II.’’

4

Traffic Safety Facts—Children 2012 Data (April

2016). https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/

Publication/812491. Last accessed on Aug 6, 2018.

5

‘‘Type 1’’ and ‘‘Type 2’’ seat belt assemblies are

defined in FMVSS No. 209, ‘‘Seat belt assemblies.’’

This NPRM would not change the current

requirement that CRSs also need to meet FMVSS

No. 213 requirements while attached using a child

restraint anchorage system.

d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing 18–

29.5 kg (40–65 lb)

e. Positioning the Legs of the HIII–3YO

Dummy in Rear-Facing CRSs

f. Table Summarizing Proposed

Amendments

g. Consistency with NHTSA’s Use of ATDs

in the Proposed Side Impact Test

X. School Bus CRSs

XI. Child Passenger Safety Issues Arising

from Research Findings

XII. Proposed Lead Time

XIII. Corrections and Other Minor

Amendments

a. Correct Reference

b. Section 5.1.2.2

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

Configuration II

d. Updating reference to SAE

Recommended Practice J211/1

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

XV. Public Participation

XVI. Appendix to Preamble

I. Executive Summary

Consistent with MAP–21, NHTSA

proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to

update the standard seat assembly on

which child restraint systems (CRSs) are

tested for compliance with the

standard’s dynamic performance

requirements. NHTSA also proposes

lessening restrictions in some of the

standard’s owner registration

requirements to give manufacturers

more flexibility to use current ways of

communication for the purposes of

increasing owner registrations for recall

notification purposes. This NPRM

proposes to lessen restrictions on the

labeling requirements so manufacturers

have the flexibility to provide CRS use

information in statements, or a

combination of statements and

pictograms, in their own words at

locations that they deem most effective

in instructing caregivers on the correct

use of the CRS. This NPRM also

proposes ways to streamline the

Agency’s use of test dummies to assess

restraint performance, including

simplifying NHTSA’s compliance tests

to make them more reflective of the real-

world use of CRSs today. In addition,

NHTSA proposes amendments to

FMVSS No. 213 to make the standard

more design-neutral in accommodating

CRSs that are designed for exclusive use

on school bus seats.

1

Lastly, NHTSA

requests comment on several

developments in child passenger safety,

including the findings of research

studies that raise safety concerns

associated with some types of CRSs.

a. Background

FMVSS No. 213 applies to all new

child restraint systems (‘‘CRSs’’ or

‘‘child restraints’’) sold in this country.

FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance

requirements that must be met in a

dynamic frontal sled test involving a 48

kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per

hour (mph)) velocity change, which is

representative of a severe crash. Each

child restraint is tested with an

anthropomorphic test device (‘‘ATD’’ or

‘‘test dummy’’) while attached to a

standardized seat assembly

representative of a passenger vehicle

seat (‘‘standard seat assembly’’).

Currently, CRSs for infants and toddlers

must meet minimum performance

requirements when attached to the

standard seat assembly by means of a

lap belt. In addition, those CRSs must

also meet those requirements in separate

tests when attached by means of the

lower anchorages of a child restraint

anchorage system.

2

Belt-positioning

(booster) seats are tested on the standard

seat assembly using a lap and shoulder

belt, since the booster seats are specially

designed to raise the child on a platform

to obtain a proper fit of the vehicle lap

and shoulder belts.

3

Child restraints are highly effective in

reducing the likelihood of death and

injury in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA

estimates that, for children less than 1

year old, a child restraint can reduce the

risk of fatality by 71 percent when used

in a passenger car and by 58 percent

when used in a pickup truck, van, or

sport utility vehicle (SUV) (‘‘light

truck’’). Child restraint effectiveness for

children between the ages of 1 and 4

years old is 54 percent in passenger cars

and 59 percent in light trucks.

4

b. Overview of this NPRM and Request

for Comment

The main topics discussed in this

document are highlighted below. This

document retrospectively reviews and

proposes revisions to FMVSS No. 213 to

modernize the seat assembly and

remove obsolete provisions from the

standard. The Agency’s goal is to ensure

the continued effectiveness of CRSs in

current and future vehicles, thereby

reducing the unreasonable risk of injury

to children in motor vehicle crashes.

(All references below are to

subparagraphs in FMVSS No. 213

unless otherwise noted.)

1. As directed by § 31501(b) of MAP–

21, NHTSA proposes to amend the

standard seat assembly (S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii))

so that it more closely resembles ‘‘a

single representative motor vehicle rear

seat.’’ The updated seat would have a

seat cushion stiffness, seat geometry,

and seat belt system (a lap/shoulder

belt) (3-point or Type 2 belt system) that

better represents rear seats of current

passenger vehicle models. Given that

Type 2 belts are required to be installed

in passenger vehicles today, NHTSA

proposes that CRSs meet the

performance requirements of the

standard while attached to the seat

assembly with a Type 2 belt. We

propose to delete, as obsolete, the

current provisions in FMVSS No. 213

requiring CRSs to meet the standard’s

requirements when attached to the seat

assembly with a lap belt (2-point or

Type 1 belt) (S5.3.2).

5

Although features of the standard seat

assembly will be updated, NHTSA

believes that the differences between the

updated and current seat assemblies

will not significantly affect the

performance of CRSs in meeting FMVSS

No. 213. In developing this NPRM,

NHTSA tested a wide variety of CRS

designs in the market using the updated

seat assembly. These CRSs had been

certified by their manufacturers as

meeting FMVSS No. 213’s performance

criteria using the current seat assembly

in the standard (which is representative

of designs of older vehicle seats). In the

tests on the updated seat assembly, all

of the CRSs also met the standard’s

performance requirements. These data

indicate that new CRSs that will be

certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213 on

the new standard seat assembly will

perform as well in older model year

vehicles.

2. To make FMVSS No. 213 more

responsive to the communication

preferences and practices of today’s

parents and to provide greater flexibility

to manufacturers in responding to those

preferences, this NPRM proposes to

reduce the restrictions on the content

and format of the owner registration

card manufacturers must provide with

new CRSs for purposes of recall

notifications (S5.8). Manufacturers

would still be required to provide the

means to register by mail, but, at their

option, would be able to use modern

means of outreach and information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69390

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

6

A copy of the May 13, 2011 petition for

rulemaking is in the docket. NHTSA is granting this

request; this document denies other aspects of the

petition.

7

NHTSA and the entire child passenger safety

community strongly recommend that children be

kept riding rear-facing at least up to the age of 1-

year. Children under age 1 are safer rear-facing than

forward-facing because in a crash the forces will be

spread evenly across the child’s back and

shoulders, the strongest part of the child’s body.

Further, the back of the head rests against and is

supported by the seating surface.

8

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

9

‘‘Booster Seat Effectiveness Estimates Based on

CDS and State Data,’’ NHTSA Technical Report,

DOT HS 811 338, July 2010. http://www-

nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811338.pdf, last accessed

on August 8, 2018.

10

The KABCO injury scale used is an on-the-

scene police-reported measure of injury. ‘‘K’’ is

killed, ‘‘A’’ is incapacitating injury, ‘‘B’’ is non-

incapacitating injury and ‘‘C’’ is possible injury.

11

NHTSA instructs that children should be

restrained in a CRS for the child’s age and size.

From birth through adulthood, children should be

restrained first using a rear-facing car seat, then a

forward-facing car seat, then a booster seat, and

finally, the vehicle’s seat belts. https://

www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-

seats#age-size-rec.

12

An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed

to be readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It

has a carrying handle that enables caregivers to tote

the CRS plus child outside of the vehicle. Some

come with a base that stays inside the vehicle onto

which the carrier attaches.

exchange and take advantage of the

latest innovative technologies to

increase owner registration rates.

3. To improve FMVSS No. 213’s

labeling requirements to better instruct

parents how best to use CRSs correctly,

the NPRM proposes amendments to the

labeling requirements (S5.5). FMVSS

No. 213 currently requires

manufacturers to label CRSs with

information on the maximum height

and weight of the children who can

safely occupy the system (S5.5.2(f)).

NHTSA believes there is a continued

need for this ‘‘use information’’ to be

permanently labeled on CRSs. However,

to clarify the information, the NPRM

proposes requiring that the information

must be provided for each mode in

which the CRS can be used (rear-facing,

forward-facing, booster). Further,

NHTSA proposes to lessen restrictions

on the use information (S5.5, S5.6) by

deleting requirements that prescribe

specific wording about the height and

weight ranges of children for whom the

CRS is recommended and that specify

that the label must be placed along other

required statements in a warning label

(S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i))). Instead,

NHTSA proposes that, subject to the

conditions listed below, manufacturers

should have the flexibility to provide

the use information in statements, or a

combination of statements and

pictograms, at visible locations that

manufacturers deem most effective.

The proposed conditions are based on

sound best practice recommendations

developed by the child passenger safety

community, or are derived from our

analyses of available data and other

technical information. Manufacturers

would have considerable flexibility to

optimize the use information they

provide for their CRSs, provided that

the information meets these conditions.

•Currently S5.5.2(f) requires child

restraints to be labeled with the overall

maximum and minimum height and

weight ranges of the children for whom

the CRS is recommended. In response to

a petition for rulemaking from Evenflo

and SafeRide News,

6

NHTSA proposes

that, for CRSs that can be used in

multiple ‘‘modes’’ depending on the

height and weight of the child (rear-

facing, forward-facing, booster, etc.), the

use information must be stated

separately for each mode. To illustrate,

instead of stating that a CRS (that can be

used rear-facing and forward-facing) is

for use by children weighing 5 to 65 lb

(2.2–29.5 kg) and with heights up to 48

inches (121.9 centimeters (cm)), the

label would indicate that the CRS is for

use rear-facing by children weighing 5

to 40 lb (2.2 to 18.2 kg) and with heights

up to 48 inches (121.9 cm), and forward-

facing by children weighing 30 to 65 lb

(13.6 to 29.5 kg) and with heights up to

48 inches (121.9 cm). The proposed

condition would protect children under

age 1-year

7

better by providing greater

assurance that they are not turned

forward-facing too soon. The proposed

condition would also provide better

guidance to caregivers on when to

graduate a child from a rear-facing CRS

to a forward-facing CRS with integral

internal harness (car safety seat) and to

a CRS in the booster seat mode.

•Relatedly, the following condition

better ensures a child under age 1 will

be positioned rear-facing than forward-

facing. A child under age 1 is safest

transported rear-facing. In seeking to

achieve that end, FMVSS No. 213

currently specifies that forward-facing

CRSs can only be recommended for

children with a minimum weight of 9 kg

(20 lb) (S5.5.2(k)(2)). However, the 9 kg

(20 lb) threshold is too low. Although

NHTSA meant for that weight to be a

minimum, many CRSs use a weight of

only 9 kg (20 lb), stating on their labels

that a child may be forward-facing

starting when he or she is 20 lb. NHTSA

would like to raise the standard’s 20-lb

threshold because it is too low to

capture a sufficient population of one-

year-olds, as 9 kg (20 lb) is about the

weight of an average 9-month-old. To

increase the number of children under

age 1 who are transported rear-facing,

NHTSA proposes to raise this weight

threshold to 12 kg (26.5 lb), which is the

weight of a 95th percentile one-year-

old.

8

The Agency believes that the

change to 26.5 lb would capture almost

all one-year-olds and would therefore

increase the number of children under

age 1 transported rear-facing.

•The following condition would

enhance the protection of 3- to 4-year-

old children traveling in motor vehicles.

While FMVSS No. 213 currently

specifies that booster seats can only be

recommended for children with a

minimum weight of 30 lb (S5.5.2(k)(2)),

NHTSA tentatively believes this

minimum should be raised to 18.4 kg

(40 lb). Crash data

9

show that, among 3-

and 4-year-olds, the risk of non-

incapacitating to fatal injury

10

increases

as much as 27 percent when the child

is restrained in a booster seat rather than

in a car safety seat (a CRS that has an

integral internal harness). An 18.4 kg

(40 lb) threshold corresponds generally

to the weight of a 97th percentile 3-year-

old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and an 85th

percentile 4-year-old. NHTSA believes

that if booster seats were only

recommended for children weighing a

minimum of 18.4 kg (40 lb), more 3- and

4-year-olds will be transported in car

safety seats, where they are better

protected at that young age, than in

booster seats. Booster seats are and

continue to be a critical type of child

restraint needed to restrain children

properly in vehicles.

11

Children will

still transition to booster seats, but just

when they are a little larger.

4. To simplify and make more

realistic the Agency’s compliance

testing of child restraint systems with

various anthropomorphic test devices

(ATDs) (test dummies), this NPRM

proposes the following changes.

•NHTSA proposes streamlining the

Agency’s selection of ATDs (test

dummies) to assess CRS performance

(S7). NHTSA would amend

specifications for ATD selection

(S7.1.2(c)) so that CRSs for children

weighing 10 kg to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb)

would be tested with just the 12-month-

old child test dummy (Child Restraint

Air Bag Interaction (CRABI–12MO)),

and would no longer be subject to being

tested with the Hybrid III 3-year-old

(HIII–3YO) test dummy. This proposed

change would better align the dummy

used in tests of infant carriers

12

with

the size and weight of children typically

restrained in infant carriers.

•Similarly, NHTSA proposes

amendments affecting CRSs labeled for

children weighing from 13.6 kg to 18.2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69391

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

13

If the CRS were also labeled as suitable for use

by children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb), then

the CRS would be subject to testing with the

CRABI–12MO.

14

The details of the benefits analysis are provided

in the Appendix to this preamble.

kg (30 to 40 lb). Currently, these CRSs

are tested with the CRABI–12MO and

the HIII–3YO. NHTSA tentatively

believes that testing with the (22 lb)

CRABI–12MO is unnecessary because

the dummy is not representative of

13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb) children.

13

This

change would make NHTSA’s

compliance tests more reflective of real

world CRS use.

•For CRSs for children in the 18.2 kg

to 29.5 kg (40 to 65 lb) weight range,

NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No.

213 to specify testing solely with the

state-of-the-art HIII–6YO child ATD.

Due in part to issues relating to the HIII–

6YO’s performance in tests on the

current (outdated) standard seat

assembly, FMVSS No. 213 has provided

manufacturers the option of NHTSA

conducting compliance tests using the

HIII–6YO or an older Hybrid II (H2)

version of the test dummy (H2–6YO)

(S7.1.2(d), S7.1.3). With the move to the

updated seat assembly, the Agency

believes the unrealistic chin-to-chest

and head-to-knee contact problems seen

in tests of the HIII–6YO on the current

seat assembly would be eliminated. The

HIII–6YO is preferred as it is a more

biofidelic test device than the H2–6YO

dummy, and more and more CRS

manufacturers are using the HIII–6YO

rather than the H2–6YO dummy.

Further, phasing out of the older H2–

6YO is desirable because it is becoming

more difficult to obtain replacement

parts for the dummy. For these reasons,

NHTSA is proposing to remove the

optional use of the H2–6YO dummy

and, instead, to adopt a provision that

NHTSA will only use the HIII–6YO in

compliance tests. NHTSA proposes

sufficient lead time (e.g., 3 years after

publication of a final rule) for the

change.

•Increasing numbers of CRSs are

sold for use rear-facing with older

children. To facilitate the Agency’s

compliance testing of the restraints,

NHTSA proposes a procedure for

positioning the 3-year-old child test

dummy’s legs when the dummy is rear-

facing. The procedure involves placing

the dummy’s legs up against the seat

back and removing the dummy’s knee

joint stops, which allows the legs to

extend at the knee in the sled test and

not brace the legs against the seat back.

The proposed procedure is already used

by some commercial test labs and CRS

manufacturers to assess the suitability of

rear-facing CRSs for older children.

5. NHTSA proposes amendments to

FMVSS No. 213 to accommodate

different types of CRSs that are designed

for exclusive use on school bus seats.

These restraints are designed to install

on school bus seats by way of straps

wrapped around the school bus seat

back or the seat back and seat pan (seat

back mount or seat back and seat pan

mounts). Currently FMVSS No. 213

permits a type of school bus ‘‘harness’’

(see S5.3.1(b) and S5.6.1.11). To permit

restraints other than harnesses, the

proposed amendments would include a

new design-neutral definition for this

type of CRS. This NPRM proposes

specific requirements for the CRSs,

including a warning label and

instructions that indicate that the CRS

must only be used on school bus seats.

Estimated Benefits and Costs

The proposal has the potential to

provide safety benefits with, at most,

minimal incremental costs.

Updating Sled Assembly and Testing

With Type 2 Belts

The proposed updates to the sled test

and testing with Type 2 belts would

better align the performance of CRSs in

compliance tests to that in real world

crashes. NHTSA believes there would

be benefits from making the FMVSS No.

213 test more representative of real

world crashes, but quantification of the

associated benefits/costs is not possible

at this time due to a lack of data to make

such an assessment.

There would only be de minimus

costs involved in changing the standard

seat assembly used by NHTSA to assess

CRS compliance. Manufacturers are not

required to use the standard seat

assembly, but as a practical matter they

usually choose to do so, to test their

CRSs as similarly as possible to the tests

conducted by NHTSA. The one-time

cost of the updated standard seat

assembly sled buck is about $8,000.

Whether a manufacturer chooses to

build the assembly itself or uses one at

an independent test facility, cost

impacts are minimal when distributed

among the hundreds of thousands of

CRSs that would be sold by each

manufacturer.

NHTSA estimates that there would be

little or no increased costs to child

restraints to meet FMVSS No. 213’s

requirements when tested on the new

sled assembly. The Agency’s test data of

representative CRSs in the fleet showed

that virtually all CRSs met the

standard’s requirements when tested on

the new sled assembly.

Registration Program

The proposed changes to the

registration card would provide

flexibility to manufacturers in how they

communicate with consumers and

would likely help improve registration

rates and recall completion rates.

However, NHTSA cannot quantify the

benefits at this time. The Agency

estimates there would be no costs

associated with the proposed changes.

The proposed changes to the registration

program would lessen restrictions and

would be optional for manufacturers to

implement. While the changes could

affect the collection of information

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act (discussed later in this preamble),

there would be no additional material

cost associated with the proposed

changes to the registration card.

Manufacturers could use the same card

and just change the wording on them.

Labeling

The Agency believes that the

proposed updates to the labeling

requirements would benefit safety by

reducing the premature graduation of

children from rear-facing CRSs to

forward-facing CRSs, and from forward-

facing CRSs to booster seats. The

Agency estimates potentially 0.7 to 2.3

lives would be saved and 1.0 to 3.5

moderate-to-critical severity injuries

would be prevented annually by raising

the manufacturer-recommended

minimum child weight for the use of

forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg (20 lb) to

12 kg (26.5 lb). NHTSA also estimates

potentially 1.2 to 4 lives would be saved

and 1.6 to 5.2 moderate-to-critical

injuries would be prevented by raising

the manufacturer-recommended

minimum child weight for use of

booster seats from 13.6 kg (30 lb) to 18.2

kg (40 lb).

14

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69392

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

15

A convertible CRS is a type of CRS that can be

used rear-facing or forward-facing with an internal

harness system to secure a child.

16

Of 21 tests with the HIII–6YO in the proposed

seat assembly, all passed the performance metrics,

except for one that failed head excursion limits.

17

The responsibility for promulgation of Federal

motor vehicle safety standards is delegated to

NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.95.

18

49 U.S.C. 30111(a).

19

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).

20

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).

21

49 U.S.C. 30111(b).

22

Id.

23

Authority delegated to NHTSA. 49 CFR

1.95(p)(2).

label. There would also be no decrease

in sales of forward-facing car safety

seats or of booster seats as a result of the

proposal to raise the minimum child

weight limit values for forward-facing

CRSs and booster seats. Most forward-

facing CRSs cover a wide child weight

range, so the labeling changes would

only affect how consumers use the

products and not the sale of them. For

example, consumers would still

purchase forward-facing car safety seats

but would wait to use them until the

child is at least 1. They would still

purchase convertible

15

CRSs, but will

delay turning the child forward-facing

until the child is at least 1. Consumers

would still purchase booster seats, but

would use them when the child reaches

18.2 kg (40 lb) rather than 13.6 kg (30

lb).

ATDs

The proposed updates in how ATDs

are used in the sled test for assessing

CRS performance better accords with

current CRS designs and best practices

for transporting child passengers

compared to the current specifications

in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA cannot

quantify the possible safety benefits at

this time.

Manufacturers are not required to test

their CRSs the way NHTSA tests child

restraints in a compliance test.

Assuming manufacturers choose to

conduct the tests specified in FMVSS

No. 213 to make their certifications of

compliance, NHTSA believes there

would be no cost increases associated

with the proposals. Some of the

proposed changes lessen testing burdens

by reducing the extent of testing with

ATDs. For example, the NPRM proposes

that CRSs for children weighing 10 kg

to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb) would no longer

be subject to testing with the HIII–3YO

dummy. NHTSA estimates a reduction

in testing cost of $540,000 for the

current number of infant carrier models

in the market. Also, CRS for children

weighing 13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb) would

no longer be tested with the CRABI–

12MO. The proposed positioning

procedure for the legs of the HIII–3YO

dummy in rear-facing CRSs is unlikely

to have cost implications because the

procedure is similar, if not identical, to

that currently used by manufacturers.

NHTSA believes there would only be

minimal costs associated with NHTSA’s

testing CRSs solely with the HIII–6YO

dummy rather than the H2–6YO

dummy. This is because there would be

little or no design changes needed for

the CRSs due to this proposed update

since nearly all the CRSs tested with the

HIII–6YO in the proposed standard seat

assembly complied with all the FMVSS

No. 213 requirements.

16

NHTSA’s

testing also showed that CRSs that

currently comply with FMVSS No. 213

using the H2–6YO dummy also met all

the performance requirements in the

standard when tested using the HIII–

6YO dummy in the proposed standard

seat assembly. In addition,

manufacturers increasingly are

certifying at least some of their CRS

models for older children using the

HIII–6YO dummy rather than the H2–

6YO and so most manufacturers already

have access to the HIII–6YO dummy

and would not need to purchase the

dummy as a result of this proposed

update.

We believe a lead time of three years

is sufficient for redesigning CRSs that

may need modifications to comply with

the proposed updates to ATD selection

for the sled test because most CRSs

would need minor or no modifications

to meet the proposed requirements.

Further, a 3-year time frame aligns with

the typical design cycle for CRSs, so any

change needed to meet the requirements

could be accommodated in the

manufacturers’ normal refinement or

refreshing of their designs. We note also

that manufacturers have the option of

not changing CRS designs in some

instances, and may instead change the

weight of the children for whom the

CRS is recommended. Narrowing the

population of children for whom the

CRS is recommended in many instances

would reduce the number of ATDs

NHTSA would use in its compliance

tests of the CRS.

School Bus Child Restraint Systems

The proposed changes to include in

FMVSS No. 213 a new type of CRS

manufactured for exclusive use on

school bus seats would allow the sale of

these products. The agency estimates

there would be no cost impacts

associated with the proposed changes

because currently available products

covered by the new definition of a

school bus CRS already meet the

proposed requirements. The benefits of

the proposed changes are associated

with the popularity of such CRSs in the

pupil transportation industry for

transporting preschool and special-

needs children. However, NHTSA

cannot quantify these benefits at this

time.

II. Statutory Authority

This NPRM is issued under the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and

MAP–21.

a. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’)

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the

Secretary of Transportation

17

is

responsible for prescribing motor

vehicle safety standards that are

practicable, meet the need for motor

vehicle safety, and are stated in

objective terms.

18

‘‘Motor vehicle

safety’’ is defined in the Vehicle Safety

Act as ‘‘the performance of a motor

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in

a way that protects the public against

unreasonable risk of accidents occurring

because of the design, construction, or

performance of a motor vehicle, and

against unreasonable risk of death or

injury in an accident, and includes

nonoperational safety of a motor

vehicle.’’

19

‘‘Motor vehicle safety

standard’’ means a minimum

performance standard for motor vehicles

or motor vehicle equipment.

20

When

prescribing such standards, the

Secretary must consider all relevant,

available motor vehicle safety

information, and consider whether a

standard is reasonable, practicable, and

appropriate for the types of motor

vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for

which it is prescribed.

21

The Secretary

must also consider the extent to which

the standard will further the statutory

purpose of reducing traffic crashes and

associated deaths and injuries.

22

b. MAP–21

MAP–21 incorporates Subtitle E,

‘‘Child Safety Standards.’’ Section

31501(b)(1) of Subtitle E requires that

not later than 2 years after the date of

enactment of the Act, the Secretary

23

shall commence a rulemaking

proceeding to amend the standard seat

assembly specifications under Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number

213 to simulate a single representative

motor vehicle rear seat better.

c. NHTSA’s Views

NHTSA is issuing this NPRM under

Vehicle Safety Act authority and MAP–

21. Section 31501(b)(2) of MAP–21

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69393

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

24

November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106–414, Stat. 1800.

25

The 2003 final rule also updated the sled pulse

to provide a wider test corridor.

26

A seat cushion consists of foam and a cover.

27

Aram, M.L., Rockwell, T., ‘‘Vehicle Rear Seat

Study,’’ Technical Report, July 2012. Report

available in the docket for this NPRM.

28

79 FR 4570, supra. As noted earlier, §31501(a)

of MAP–21 states that the Secretary shall issue a

final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the

protection of children seated in child restraint

systems during side impact crashes.

29

Anchorage locations are aligned to the

corresponding seat assembly’s seat orientation

reference line (SORL).

30

See also a memorandum documenting ex parte

meeting with the Juvenile Products Manufacturers

Association (JPMA), available at Docket No.

NHTSA–2013–0055–0004.

31

NHTSA notes that the lower anchorage bars

may not be configured like they are on the frontal

test seat assembly proposed today. The lower

anchorage design on the frontal test seat assembly

consists of two side structures with a replaceable

lower anchorage bar, a design that eases the bar’s

replacement. NHTSA may not incorporate this

Continued

directs NHTSA to issue a final rule

amending the standard seat assembly of

FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA believes that,

in requiring a final rule amending

‘‘Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Number 213,’’ MAP–21 envisions that

the rulemaking on the standard seat

assembly will accord with the

requirements and considerations for

FMVSSs under the Vehicle Safety Act.

III. Updating the Representative Seat

Assembly

To update FMVSS No. 213’s

assessment of CRS performance,

NHTSA proposes to amend the standard

seat assembly specified by FMVSS No.

213 to better simulate ‘‘a single

representative motor vehicle rear seat,’’

as directed by § 31501(b) of MAP–21.

The updated seat would comprise a

stiffer seat cushion, representative seat

geometry, and a 3-point seat belt (in lieu

of the 2-point lap belt on the current

seat assembly). The updated seat

assembly would have only one seating

position, unlike the current FMVSS No.

213 standard seat assembly, which has

two positions.

a. Background on This Proposed Seat

Assembly

In 2003, in response to the

Transportation Recall Enhancement,

Accountability and Documentation

(TREAD) Act,

24

NHTSA updated the

FMVSS No. 213 standard seat assembly

to make it more representative of rear

seats of the vehicle fleet (68 FR 37620,

June 24, 2003).

25

The 2003 final rule

changed the seat assembly’s seat pan

angle, seat back angle, spacing between

the anchors of the lap belts and the

rigidity of the seat back. Due to TREAD

Act timeframes, limited agency

resources and competing priorities, the

update did not include modifications to

the seat cushion.

26

Aware that the seat cushion of the

FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly was

softer than the rear seat cushions of

many new vehicles in the fleet, NHTSA

continued to investigate seat cushion

stiffness and other characteristics after

the 2003 final rule. In 2012, the agency

initiated a research program (‘‘Vehicle

Rear Seat Study’’) as part of an initiative

to assess the representativeness of the

FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact sled

test.

27

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study

surveyed vehicles in the fleet to compile

data on the rear seat environment. The

study measured 43 individual rear

seating positions in 24 model year (MY)

2010 vehicles. Measurements were

obtained on features that included seat

back angle and height, seat pan width,

softness of the seat cushion, location of

seat belts and locations of child restraint

anchorage systems.

NHTSA used data from the Vehicle

Rear Seat Study in designing the seat

assembly proposed in the January 28,

2014 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213’s side

impact test.

28

The dynamic sled test was

originally developed by Takata

Corporation. The agency used the

vehicle survey data to guide the

proposed seat design towards a seat

assembly better representing the U.S.

vehicle fleet. NHTSA sought to have the

proposed seat assembly geometry and

the belt and child restraint anchorage

locations within one standard deviation

of the average values in the current

vehicle fleet. The proposed side impact

bench seat assembly also had features of

the seat assembly of Regulation No. 44

(R.44) of the United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe (ECE), ‘‘Uniform

provisions concerning the approval of

restraining devices for child occupants

of power-driven vehicles (child restraint

systems)’’ (ECE R.44).

The January 28, 2014 side impact

NPRM generated many comments on

the proposed side impact seat assembly,

notably with regard to the difficulty

some commenters had in procuring the

ECE R.44 seat cushion that had been

proposed for inclusion in the seat

assembly. Commenters also requested

some changes to the lower anchorage

specifications.

b. Consistency with the Proposal for the

Side Impact Bench

As noted above, NHTSA’s January 28,

2014 NPRM proposing to add a dynamic

side impact test to FMVSS No. 213

included specifications for a standard

seat assembly that would be used in the

compliance test. After reviewing the

comments on the side impact proposal

and other information, NHTSA is

considering using the seat assembly

proposed in this NPRM for the side

impact test instead of the seat assembly

that was proposed in the January 28,

2014 side impact NPRM. NHTSA

believes that using the same

specifications of the standard seat

assembly (including seat geometry, seat

cushion, and anchorage locations

29

) for

both the side impact test and a frontal

impact test makes sense, since the aim

is to have a representative seat assembly

and the same passenger vehicles are

involved in side and frontal crashes.

The standard seat assembly proposed

in the January 2014 side impact NPRM

is substantially like the seat proposed in

this NPRM, but NHTSA believes this

proposed seat assembly is a better seat

assembly primarily regarding the

cushion foam. The former specified use

of the ECE R.44 seat cushion, while this

proposed seat assembly incorporates

seat cushion foam that is more

representative of the seat cushion

stiffness of the current vehicle fleet.

This proposed seat cushion is also

easier to procure than the ECE R.44

foam. Commenters to the January 2014

side impact NPRM expressed concerns

about the difficulty to source the ECE

R44 seat foam, which is only available

from one overseas supplier.

30

NHTSA

tentatively believes that using the foam

specified in this NPRM for the frontal

test seat assembly would alleviate those

concerns.

There would be a few adjustments

that would be made to the standard seat

assembly proposed in the January 2014

side impact NPRM to make it like the

seat assembly proposed today. This

NPRM proposes cushion foam 101.6

mm (4 inches) thick while the ECE R.44

seat cushion is 127 mm (5 inches). If the

foam specified in this NPRM is used in

the side impact test, the intruding door

structure of the side impact standard

seat assembly would need to be lowered

about an inch to maintain the vertical

position of the intruding door relative to

the standard seat assembly. Some

adjustments would also be made to the

seat belt anchorage locations and the

seat back height proposed in the January

2014 NPRM. These and other issues are

discussed in detail below in this

preamble. The positioning of the child

restraint anchorage system would be

slightly moved so that the lower bars

would be located where they are on the

frontal test seat assembly proposed

today.

31

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69394

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

particular anchorage design into the side impact

seat assembly, as some commenters to the January

2014 side impact NPRM noted that the side

structure of the lower anchorages can interfere with

the lower anchorage attachments of the tested CRS.

Instead, NHTSA is considering reconfiguring the

design of the lower anchorages of the side impact

seat assembly so that undue interference would be

avoided.

32

The current seat back angle of the FMVSS No.

213 seat assembly is 20 degrees.

33

The current seat pan angle of the FMVSS No.

213 seat assembly is 15 degrees.

34

The current FMVSS No. 213 test seat assembly

has a seat pan length of 16.3 inch (416 mm).

Comments are requested on this issue

of consistency between the seat

assembly used in the side impact test

and the seat assembly proposed in this

NPRM for FMVSS No. 213’s frontal

impact test.

c. Seat Geometry

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study

measured the vehicles’ seat geometry

and anchorage locations using a Seat

Geometry Measuring Fixture (SGMF).

The SGMF consisted of two wood

blocks (600 mm x 88 mm x 38 mm) and

a 76 mm (3 inches) hinge (see Figure 1

below). To make the rear seat geometry

measurements, the SGMF was

positioned on the centerline of each rear

seat position. Point A (see Figure 1),

which corresponds to the hinge location

of the SGMF, was the reference point for

all measurements.

1. Seat Back Angle

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study found

that the average seat back angle of the

surveyed vehicles was 20 degrees from

vertical, with a standard deviation of 4

degrees.

32

The seat back angle ranged

from a minimum of 9 degrees to a

maximum of 28 degrees from vertical.

The Agency is proposing a seat back

angle of 20 degrees on the updated test

seat assembly. The value is

representative of the seat back angles

found in the vehicle fleet (within one

standard deviation of the average values

in the current fleet). Also, the proposed

seat back angle would simplify the

change to a new seat assembly in that

it would be the same as the angle of the

current FMVSS No. 213 test seat

assembly and that of the originally-

proposed standard seat for the side

impact test.

2. Seat Pan Angle

For the seat pan angle, the Vehicle

Rear Seat Study found that the average

angle was 13 degrees from the

horizontal, with a standard deviation of

4 degrees.

33

The seat pan angle ranged

from a minimum of 7 degrees to a

maximum of 23 degrees.

The Agency is proposing to maintain

a seat pan angle of 15 degrees on the

updated test seat assembly. The

measurement is representative of the

seat pan angles found in the vehicle

fleet (within one standard deviation of

the average values in the current fleet).

Also, the proposed seat pan angle would

simplify the change to a new seat

assembly in that it would be the same

as the angle of the current FMVSS No.

213 test seat assembly and that of the

originally-proposed standard seat

assembly for the side impact test.

The Agency notes that the seat pans

of some vehicle rear seats are equipped

with anti-submarining devices or are

contoured in a manner to prevent

submarining. The Agency did not

replicate these features in the standard

seat assembly for simplicity’s sake.

NHTSA tentatively concludes that a seat

pan angle of 15 degrees is representative

of the seat pan angle of rear seats in the

vehicle fleet and would be sufficient for

evaluating the performance of CRSs

attached to the seat.

At the end of the seat geometry

section, Table 3, infra, shows a

comparison of the seat back and seat

pan angles found in the vehicle fleet,

and the proposed and current angles of

the test seat assembly.

3. Seat Pan Length

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed

that the average seat pan length of the

surveyed vehicles was 406 mm (16

inches) with a standard deviation of 38

mm (1.5 inches).

34

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.004</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69395

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

35

The current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly has

a seat back height of 20.35 inch (517 mm) and it

does not have a head restraint.

36

Wietholter, K., Louden, A., and Sullivan, L.

‘‘Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No. 213

Test Bench,’’ June 2016 available in the docket for

this NPRM.

37

The NPACS consortium was funded in 2005 by

governments of the United Kingdom, the

Netherlands, Germany, the Generalitat of Catalonia,

and five non-governmental organizations. The

objectives of NPACS is to provide scientifically

based EU wide harmonized test and rating protocols

to offer consumers clear and understandable

information about dynamic performance and

usability of child restraint systems. NPACS is

similar to NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program

(NCAP) and the NCAP program administered in

Europe (EuroNCAP), in that it is a voluntary

consumer information program, rather than a

binding regulation. The difference is that NPACS is

designed to test CRSs, while NCAP focuses on

vehicle performance.

38

The ECE and NPACS foams were tested with

the foams placed on a flat adjustable table, while

the FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion was tested with

the cushion placed on the FMVSS No. 213 standard

seat assembly. The measured dynamic stiffness

characteristics of the foam and cushion are not

expected to differ significantly whether placed on

a flat adjustable table or on a seat assembly.

The Agency is proposing a seat pan

length of 412 mm (16.2 inches), which

is within one standard deviation of the

average seat pan length in the current

vehicle fleet.

4. Seat Back Height

The Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed

that the average height of the seat back

was 688 mm (27 inches) with a standard

deviation of 76 mm (3 inches) when the

head restraint was included and 578

mm (22.7 inches) with a standard

deviation of 60 mm (2.3 inches) when

the head restraint was not included in

the measurement.

35

The Agency is proposing a seat back

height of 573 mm (22.5 inches) for the

new standard seat assembly, which is

within one standard deviation of the

average seat back height when the head

restraint is not included.

5. Rear Seat Cushions

i. Stiffness of the Bottom Seat Cushion

The Agency compared the stiffness of

rear seat cushions (consisting of foam

and a cover) in the fleet to that of the

seat cushions used in various test

programs, including FMVSS No. 213.

NHTSA first measured the quasi-static

stiffness (force-deflection) of the seat

cushions in rear seats of 13 MY 2003–

2008 passenger vehicles.

36

The 13

passenger vehicles were representative

of the current vehicle fleet, and

comprise a mix of different vehicle

types (passenger cars, SUVs, and

minivans) produced by different vehicle

manufacturers.

A quasi-static load was applied at a

rate of 0.374 mm/s using a 203

millimeters (mm) (8 inch) diameter disk

shaped indentor. NHTSA compared the

force-deflection values to those of the

standard seat assembly specified in the

New Programme for the Assessment of

Child Restraint Systems (NPACS),

37

ECE R.44, and FMVSS No. 213. The

force-deflection curves of the different

seat cushions are presented in Figure 2

below.

The data showed that the current

FMVSS No. 213 initial seat cushion

stiffness (force for the first 25 mm of

deflection) is less than that of the seat

cushions in the 13 MY 2003–2008

vehicles. Conversely, the initial stiffness

of the NPACS and the ECE R.44 seat

cushions are greater than most of the

measured vehicle seat cushions.

Since CRSs are tested on the FMVSS

No. 213 standard seat assembly in a

dynamic sled test, NHTSA also

evaluated the dynamic stiffness of the

various seat cushions. NHTSA

compared the dynamic force-deflection

(dynamic stiffness) of: The seat cushion

in rear seats of 14 MY 2006–2011

vehicles, the seat foams specified in ECE

R.44 and NPACS, and the seat cushion

of the FMVSS No. 213 standard seat

assembly.

38

The dynamic stiffness of the

seat cushions and seat foams were

determined using a pendulum impact

device (PID), which consisted of an arm

with a 152.4 mm (6 inch) diameter

impactor (weighing 7.8 kg (17.2 lb)). The

impactor was dropped at an average

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.005</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69396

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

39

See ‘‘Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS

No. 213 Test Bench,’’ June 2016, supra. A 3.4

m/s (7.6 mph) test speed was used. This speed

resulted in the impact device compressing the foam

similar to how the foam was compressed in FMVSS

No. 213 sled tests with various test dummies.

40

The Woodbridge Group is a supplier of

automotive seat foam, http://www.woodbridge

group.com.

41

The properties of this new seat cushion would

be fully specified in a drawing package

accompanying this document to enable interested

parties to manufacture this seat cushion.

impact velocity of 3.4 meters per second

(m/s) (7.6 mph) on the seat cushion.

39

The PID was instrumented with a tri-

axial accelerometer and an angular rate

sensor to calculate the displacement and

a uniaxial load cell to measure the force.

Figure 3 below shows that the ECE

R.44 and NPACS foams were found to

be stiffer than the vehicle fleet. The

FMVSS No. 213 foam, tested on the

standard seat assembly with a cover, is

on the low end of the vehicle fleet rear

seat stiffness.

Since the ECE R.44 and NPACS seat

foam stiffness were found not to be

representative of the current U.S.

vehicle fleet (both quasi-static and

dynamic stiffness), the agency

developed a new seat cushion that

would be representative. The foam used

in the seat cushion was manufactured

by The Woodbridge Group

(Woodbridge),

40

and is referred to as the

‘‘NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion’’ in

this NPRM. The NHTSA-Woodbridge

seat cushion consists of the foam

material covered by the cover used in

test procedures of ECE R.44. The ECE

R.44 cover material is a sun shade cloth

made of poly-acrylate fiber with a

specific mass of 290 (g/m

2

) and a

lengthwise and breadthwise breaking

strength of 120 kg (264.5 lb) and 80 kg

(176.3 lb), respectively.

41

The dynamic

force-deflection of the NHTSA-

Woodbridge standard seat cushion is

shown below in Figure 4. NHTSA

tentatively concludes that the stiffness

of the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion

is satisfactorily representative of the

average seat cushion stiffness found in

the vehicle fleet (grey lines).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.006</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69397

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

42

Foam products are typically characterized by

their IFD and density values rather than by their

dynamic performance.

43

The current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly seat

pan cushion has a thickness of 152.4 mm (6 inch).

To simplify procurement of the

desired seat cushion foam, Table 1

below sets forth characteristics of the

NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion foam

as determined by the test methods

specified in ASTM D–3574–03,

‘‘Standard test methods for flexible

cellular materials—slab, bonded, and

molded urethane foam.’’ ‘‘IFD’’ refers to

the indentation force-deflection (IFD)

test, which measures the force required

for 25 percent, 50 percent, and 65

percent deflection of the entire product

sample.

42

The compression force-

deflection (CFD) test measures the force

required to compress a sample of the

foam (50 mm (1.96 inch) by 50 mm and

25 mm (0.98 inch) thickness) by 50

percent. Further details of seat cushion

characteristics are available in the

drawings that are in the docket for this

NPRM.

T

ABLE

1—S

TIFFNESS OF THE

NHTSA-W

OODBRIDGE

S

EAT

C

USHION

F

OAM

Foam characteristics

Density ...................................................................................................... 47 kg/m

3

(2.9 lb/ft

3

).

IFD (25% deflection) ................................................................................. 237 Newton (N) (53.2 lb).

IFD (50% deflection) ................................................................................. 440 Newton (N) (99 lb).

IFD (65% deflection) ................................................................................. 724 Newton (N) (162.7 lb).

CFD (50% compression) .......................................................................... 6.6 kPa (137.8 lb/ft

2

).

ii. Thickness of the Bottom Seat

Cushion

NHTSA tentatively concludes that the

bottom seat cushion foam should be

101.6 mm (4-inches) thick. A 101.6 mm

(4-inch) thickness would be

representative of the seat cushions on

real world vehicles. The Vehicle Rear

Seat Study found an average seat pan

cushion thickness for both outboard and

center seating positions of 90 mm (3.5

inches) with a standard deviation of 40

mm (1.5 inches), measured at the

centerline of the seating position.

43

A

101.6 mm (4 inch) seat cushion foam

thickness for the seat pan also has the

advantage of simplifying procurement of

the foam since foam standard

specifications, such as IFD, are provided

by the manufacturer in 101.6 mm (4

inches) samples, as specified in test

method B1 of ASTM D3574. Thus,

specifying a 101.6 mm (4 inch) foam

thickness would streamline compliance

testing because foam of that size would

be relatively simple to procure.

iii. The Foam Is Suitable for Use in the

Standard’s Dynamic Test

The NHTSA-Woodbridge foam not

only would be representative of foam in

real world vehicles, it also appears

suitable for use in the FMVSS No. 213

compliance test. One concern about any

foam used on the standard seat

assembly is whether the foam would

‘‘bottom out’’ (fully compress) on to the

rigid backing during the demanding

conditions of the sled test. The current

soft FMVSS No. 213 seat cushion has a

tendency to bottom out in tests of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.007</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69398

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

44

‘‘Evaluation of Seat Foams for the FMVSS No.

213 Test Bench,’’ June 2016, supra.

forward-facing CRSs using the heavier

test dummies specified in FMVSS No.

213 (Hybrid III 6-year-old (HIII–6YO)

and Hybrid III 10-year-old (HIII–10YO)

child dummies).

The Agency conducted FMVSS No.

213-type sled tests to evaluate whether

the NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion

would bottom out when tested in a

severe impact test (35 g at 56.3

kilometers per hour (km/h) or 35 mph)

using heavy dummies restrained in a

heavy CRS. NHTSA used two samples

of NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushions

(101.6 mm (4 inches)) and the Graco

Smart Seat in the test series. These

pulse and test speeds were more severe

than the test conditions specified in

FMVSS No. 213.

NHTSA selected the Graco Smart Seat

for this testing because the CRS

represents a heavy CRS relative to

current CRSs in the market, weighing

9.5 kg (21 lb) without its base and 14.9

kg (33 lb) with its base (the base is used

in rear-facing and forward-facing

modes). The CRS was tested in rear-

facing and forward-facing modes (with

the base) using a HIII–3YO dummy and

HIII–6YO dummy, and tested in the

belt-positioning booster seat mode

(without the base) using a HIII–6YO and

HIII–10YO.

In our tests, NHTSA considered the

seat cushion to have bottomed out along

the front edge if the seat cushion

displacement exceeded 96.5 mm (3.8

inches). Seat cushion displacement at

the front edge of the seat was measured

by video analysis.

44

Cushion

displacement was not measured in the

tests with rear-facing CRSs as the high

rotation of the CRS did not allow for an

accurate measurement.

Test results are shown in Table 2

below. The NHTSA-Woodbridge seat

cushion did not bottom out in any of the

tests, even when subjected to the severe

test conditions and when using a heavy

test dummy and a heavy CRS.

iv. Thickness of the Seat Back Foam

For the seat back cushion, NHTSA

proposes to use the NHTSA-Woodbridge

seat cushion foam with a 50.8 mm (2

inch) thickness. A 50.8 mm (2 inch)

thickness would be representative of

seat back cushions in the fleet. The

Vehicle Rear Seat Study showed that the

overall seat back cushion thickness for

outboard and center seating positions

was 76 mm (3 inches) with a standard

deviation of 29 mm (1.14 inches),

measured at the centerline of the seating

position. The proposed seat back

cushion thickness of 50.8 mm (2 inches)

is within 1 standard deviation of the

average seat back cushion thickness in

the vehicle fleet.

Further, while NHTSA does not

believe that the seat back cushion

significantly affects a CRS’s dynamic

performance in the frontal sled test, the

Agency recognizes that a seat back

cushion on the thicker side could be a

potential source of variability when

testing CRSs with top tethers. When the

tether is tightened, the back cushion can

be compressed to varying degrees. Data

do not indicate that differences in

compression necessarily affect CRS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.008</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69399

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

45

Belt-positioning booster seats are currently

tested with a 3-point belt system, as these child

restraint systems are designed for use with 3-point

belts.

46

Incorporating a 3-point belt on the standard

seat assembly would harmonize FMVSS No. 213

with the counterpart Canadian regulation (Canadian

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 213,

‘‘Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seat

Safety Regulations’’). While the 3-point belt

anchorage locations in the Canadian standard seat

assembly are different than those in this proposal,

Transport Canada is considering harmonizing its

standard with NHTSA’s proposed changes.

47

FMVSS No. 210 specifies a location corridor for

the lap belt anchorages which is between 30 and 75

degrees from the horizontal at the H-point.

performance, but a 50.8 mm (2 inch)

thick foam would reduce such

differences and thus facilitate a more

repeatable installation.

The Agency notes also that specifying

that the foam thickness is 50.8 mm (2

inches) would streamline the FMVSS

No. 213 compliance test. Foam

manufacturers readily produce foams in

101.6 mm (4 inch) sections. A 101.6 mm

(4 inch) thick foam slab can be easily

cut into two 50.8 mm (2 inch) pieces to

be used for the seat back.

6. Summary of Seat Geometry Features

Table 3 below shows a comparison of

features of seating assemblies found in

the vehicle fleet, and the proposed and

current features of the FMVSS No. 213

test seat assembly.

d. Seat Belt Anchorage Locations

FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs (other

than belt-positioning booster seats) to

meet the standard’s performance

requirements while attached with a 2-

point belt (lap belt).

45

In some tests, a

top tether may be used to supplement

the belt attachment. The current seat

assembly has a 2-point belt for testing

CRSs.

To make FMVSS No. 213’s standard

seat assembly more representative of the

vehicle fleet, the NPRM proposes

replacing the 2-point belt with a 3-point

belt. (This NPRM also proposes

requiring CRSs to be tested under

FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the

standard seat assembly using the 3-point

belt.) Three-point belts were first

required in outboard rear seats of

passenger vehicles starting in MY 1990

and in trucks and multipurpose

passenger vehicles (including passenger

vans and SUVs) starting in MY 1992.

Three-point belts in center rear seats

were phased-in between September 1,

2005 and September 1, 2007. The on-

the-road passenger vehicle fleet is now

predominantly comprised of vehicles

with 3-point belts in all rear seating

positions, and more and more vehicles

will be so equipped in the near future.

Therefore, to test CRSs with what will

be the most common seat belt

configuration in the vehicle fleet, the

agency proposes to incorporate a 3-point

belt in the proposed standard seat

assembly.

46

NHTSA began its assessment of where

the seat belt anchorages should be

located on the updated FMVSS No. 213

standard seat assembly by considering

anchor location requirements in FMVSS

No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly

anchorages.’’

47

Figure 5 shows the side

view of the proposed bench, the

proposed location of the lap belt

anchors and the FMVSS No. 210

corridor. This figure shows that the lap

belt anchor locations on the proposed

bench are within the FMVSS No. 210

corridor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.009</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69400

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

NHTSA also considered the data on

real-world anchorage locations from the

Vehicle Rear Seat Study. Table 4 below

shows the average position along with

the standard deviation of the lap and

shoulder belt anchorages measured in

the 24 vehicles surveyed. Measurements

were made with respect to Point A of

the SGMF. The table also shows similar

measurements of the seat belt anchorage

locations on the current FMVSS No. 213

standard seat assembly, the proposed

seat assembly, along with those in ECE

R.44 and NPACS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.010</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69401

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

48

Some CRSs, such as belt-positioning seats and

harnesses, are excluded from this requirement.

49

The vertical location of the lower anchors in

the proposed seat assembly is just 2 mm lower than

one standard deviation below the average vertical

location of lower anchors in the vehicle fleet.

50

NPRM to improve the ease-of-use of child

restraint anchorage systems. 80 FR 3744, January

23, 2015. Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0123. The

Continued

NHTSA also located the anchorages to

avoid interference with the seat

assembly structure in an FMVSS No.

213 compliance test. Interaction of the

seat belt with the vehicle seat assembly,

or the child restraint with a seat belt

anchorage, could introduce variability

in the test results. The shoulder belt

anchor is located more rearward and

higher than the average location from

the vehicle survey to avoid interaction

of the shoulder belt with the seat back

cushion, and interaction of large high

back boosters with the shoulder belt

anchorage hardware. The lap belt

anchors are located to be more rearward

and lower than the average location

from the vehicle survey, to avoid

interaction of the seat belt and seat belt

hardware with the seat cushion.

Even with these adjustments, as

shown in Table 4, supra, the fore/aft,

lateral, and vertical positions of the lap

and shoulder belt anchorages relative to

point A for the proposed seat assembly

are within one standard deviation of the

average values found in the vehicle

survey.

e. Child Restraint Anchorage System

Locations

FMVSS No. 213 also requires CRSs to

meet the standard’s performance

requirements while attached by way of

a child restraint anchorage system

(S5.3.2).

48

In some tests, a top tether

may be used to supplement the lower

anchorage attachment (S6.1.2(a)(1)).

The standard seat assembly of FMVSS

No. 213 has a child restraint anchorage

system consisting of two lower anchor

bars and a top tether anchor. The child

restraint anchorage system is configured

as specified by FMVSS No. 225, ‘‘Child

restraint anchorage systems,’’ for

systems installed on vehicles. FMVSS

No. 225 requires lower anchors to be

280 mm (11 inches) apart and have

specific anchor geometry.

In the Vehicle Rear Seat Study

NHTSA measured the location of the

lower anchor and the tether anchor in

the vehicles. Table 5 below shows the

location of the lower anchors and the

tether anchor from Point A of the SGMF

in the 24-vehicle survey, and that of the

proposed FMVSS No. 213 seat

assembly. The lower anchors of the

proposed standard seat assembly have a

280 mm (11 inch) lateral spacing as

specified in FMVSS No. 225. Each lower

anchor metal bar is 37 mm (1.45 inches)

long.

The location of the lower anchorages

selected for the proposed seat assembly

is slightly lower than the average

location in the vehicle survey.

49

NHTSA

located the anchorages slightly lower

because anchorages positioned higher

may cause some CRS attachments to

interfere with the seat back cushion.

Also, the Agency was concerned that

CRSs designed with rigid attachments

(that attach to the lower anchor bars

without use of webbing) may adopt an

incorrect installation angle when the

bars are higher.

NHTSA also chose an anchorage

location more forward (closer to the seat

bight) than the average from the Vehicle

Rear Seat Study. The more forward

location was selected to make it easier

to install the CRS on the seat assembly

in a compliance test, and to measure the

tension in the belt webbing used for the

lower anchorage attachment. Further,

NHTSA anticipates that lower

anchorages will likely be more forward

than in current vehicles if future

vehicles employ the design concepts

discussed in NHTSA’s 2015 MAP–21

NPRM, supra, to improve the ease-of-

use of child restraint anchorage

systems.

50

Thus, while the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.011</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69402

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

NPRM proposes to require vehicle manufacturers to

place the anchorages within 2 centimeters from the

seat bight.

51

NHTSA is not changing FMVSS No. 213’s

requirement that covered CRSs must also meet the

standard’s performance requirements while

attached using a child restraint anchorage system.

52

See results of test numbers 8917, 8922, 8919,

8923, 8929 and 8931 in Table 11 and test numbers

8917, 8922, 8919 and 8923 in Table 12 of this

NPRM.

53

P.C. 2010–545 April 29, 2010. 2010–05–12

Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 144, No. 10.

54

ISOFIX is a system for connecting child

restraint systems to vehicles which consists of two

rigid anchorages in the vehicle, two corresponding

rigid attachments on the child restraint system and

a means to limit the pitch rotation of the child

restraint system.

lower anchorage location in the aft

direction is not within one standard

deviation of the average in the current

vehicle fleet, NHTSA believes that the

fleet will be changing. The proposed aft

location of lower anchors for the

upgraded standard seat would be

representative of the average future

vehicle fleet.

NHTSA also used the Vehicle Rear

Seat Study to position the tether

anchorage on the new standard seat

assembly. While FMVSS No. 225

permits the tether anchorage to be in a

wide area in the vehicle, the study

found that the tether anchorages are

mostly centered along the designated

seating position (DSP) centerline. Also,

the anchorages are found in two main

areas: The seat back at different heights

(mainly in SUVs, hatchbacks, vans, and

trucks) and the package shelf (mainly in

sedans and coupe type vehicles). In a

few vehicles, the tether anchorage is on

the rear wall (pickup trucks) or the roof.

Based on sales volumes, the number of

vehicles with tether anchorages in the

package shelf is about the same as those

with tether anchorages in the seat back.

The Agency proposes to locate the

tether anchorage in the seat back area.

NHTSA believes that locating the

anchorage on the seat back, rather than

in a position representing the package

shelf, results in a slightly more

demanding test as anchoring a CRS to

the former causes more tether strap

webbing to be used than if the anchor

were directly aft of and closer to the

CRS. More webbing used in the test may

slightly increase the likelihood that

higher head excursions could result, as

webbing has a natural tendency to

elongate in the sled test.

The location of the tether anchorage

in the proposed standard seat assembly

is within one standard deviation of the

average found by the Vehicle Rear Seat

Study as shown in Table 5.

T

ABLE

5—L

OWER

A

NCHORS AND

T

ETHER

A

NCHOR

L

OCATION

F

ROM THE

24-V

EHICLE

S

URVEY AND

T

HOSE IN THE

P

ROPOSED

FMVSS N

O

. 213 S

TANDARD

S

EAT

A

SSEMBLY

[All measurements are in millimeters from point A of the SGMF]

Average from

vehicle survey Proposed

FMVSS No. 213

Lower Anchors .......................................................... Aft ............................................................................. 100 ± 21 58

Lateral ....................................................................... 137 ± 29 140

Vertical (¥) Below point A ....................................... ¥12 ± 24 ¥38

Tether Anchors (Seat Back Position) ....................... Aft ............................................................................. 280 ± 88 330

Lateral ....................................................................... 0 ± 44 0

Vertical (¥) Below point A ....................................... 140 ± 281 133

IV. Installing CRSs With a Type 2 Belt

Rather Than a Type 1 Belt

To drive continued effective CRS

performance in today’s vehicles,

NHTSA proposes to require all CRSs to

meet the performance requirements of

FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the

seat assembly with a Type 2 (lap/

shoulder) belt. Currently, CRSs are sled

tested while attached with a Type 1

(lap) belt.

51

With the prevalence of Type

2 belts in the rear seats of vehicles sold

and on the road today, testing CRSs

with the type of seat belt caregivers

would be using better ensures the

representativeness of the compliance

test. Test data do not indicate any

significant difference in performance in

current child restraint designs when

installed using a Type 1 versus a Type

2 belt.

52

Adopting a requirement that CRSs

meet the standard when tested with a

Type 2 belt would be consistent with

Canada’s CMVSS No. 213, supra. Since

2010, Transport Canada tests CRSs

equipped with internal harnesses by

installing them with a Type 2 belt.

53

V. Denial of Petition Regarding a Floor

On January 28, 2011, Volvo petitioned

NHTSA requesting that the Agency

amend FMVSS No. 213 by: (1) Updating

the seat cushion of the sled standard

seat assembly; (2) allowing a lap/

shoulder belt fastening in the test

procedure; and (3) adding a floor to the

sled fixture used in the compliance test

procedure. Volvo suggests that these

amendments would make FMVSS No.

213 more reflective of real-world

conditions and facilitate ‘‘rearward-

facing child seating for as long as

practicable.’’ Volvo states that it offers

add-on and built-in booster seats in the

U.S., but does not offer child restraints

for children under the age of 4

‘‘primarily because of the inherent

problems in [FMVSS] No. 213 and in

showing compliance with this standard

for larger rearward-facing child

restraints.’’

The requests of items (1) and (2)

above are being met by this rulemaking.

The request for adding a floor (item (3))

is denied. NHTSA discusses this request

below.

Volvo believes that the most effective

way to fasten a rear-facing child

restraint is to use the seat belts or the

ISOFIX

54

anchors together with a

support leg extending down to the floor

of the vehicle. Volvo states that this

method of attachment has been

available to Volvo and child restraint

manufacturers in countries outside the

U.S. for many years and has ‘‘proven to

be very practicable.’’ Volvo states: ‘‘For

the US, it is not, however, possible to

certify this solution to FMVSS 213 since

this standard does not offer a floor for

the sled specified in the test procedure.’’

Volvo states that ‘‘the addition of the

floor in the sled used in standard

FMVSS 213 appears to be well justified

since all cars in the modern car fleet

would have a floor between the first and

second rows of seats.’’

NHTSA is denying the request. The

test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213

sled test replicate the real-world vehicle

features and crash factors that bear on

a child restraint’s performance in

protecting a child in the real world.

Included in those test parameters are the

test seat assembly (seat geometry, seat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69403

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

55

National Child Restraint Use Special Study,

DOT HS 811 679, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142. NCRUSS is a

large-scale nationally-representative survey that

involves both an inspection of the child passenger’s

restraint system by a certified child passenger safety

technician and a detailed interview of the driver.

The survey collected information on drivers and on

child passengers ages 0–8 years between June and

August 2011.

56

‘‘A Look Inside American Family Vehicles

2009–2010,’’ Safe Kids USA, September 2011.

(http://www.safekids.org/assets/docs/safety-basics/

safety-tips-by-risk-area/sk-car-seat-report-2011.pdf.)

The study was based on 79,000 observations from

‘‘car seat check’’ events and appointments that took

place between October 1, 2009 and September 30,

2010.

57

Eichelberger, A. H., Decina, L.E., Jermakian, J.

S., McCartt, A. T., ‘‘Use of top tether with forward

facing child restraints: Observations and driver

interviews,’’ IIHS, April 2013. IIHS surveyed and

collected data at roughly 50 suburban sites near

Fredericksburg, VA, Philadelphia, PA, Seattle, WA,

and Washington, DC Shopping centers, recreation

facilities, child-care centers, car seat checkpoints

and healthcare facilities were among the locations.

58

FMVSS No. 213 does not prohibit Volvo or any

other manufacturer from providing a support leg as

long as the child restraint meets the standard’s

minimum performance levels without the support

leg.

59

Under FMVSS No. 213 (S6.1.1(b)(1)), the

dynamic test is at a velocity change of 48 km/h (30

Continued

cushion characteristics), methods of

child restraint attachment to the test

seat assembly (lap belt, lap/shoulder

belt, and child restraint anchorage

system), the standard’s limits on head

excursion, the sled crash pulse, and the

test velocity. The test parameters are

also chosen and designed to reflect how

child restraints are actually used in the

real world. Thus, as examples, the

standard requires a universal and

standardized means of attaching CRSs to

reflect that CRS are used

interchangeably in all models of

vehicles. The standard’s test parameters

include a test in which the CRS is

installed without attaching a tether,

because non-use of a top tether is

prevalent.

Studies from NHTSA’s National Child

Restraint Use Special Study

(NCRUSS),

55

Safe Kids,

56

and the

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

(IIHS)

57

have shown that tether use is

still low in the field. NCRUSS found

that the overall tether use was 42

percent. Safe Kids found that overall

tether usage in forward-facing CRSs

with internal harnesses was only 29

percent. Tether use was 45 percent

when the CRS was attached with lower

anchorages and 15 percent when the

CRS was attached with seat belts. IIHS

researchers analyzed data from 479

vehicle observations and found that the

top tether was used only 56 percent of

the time. With prevalent tether nonuse

in the field, NHTSA requires forward-

facing CRSs to meet minimum

performance requirements while

untethered in an FMVSS No. 213

compliance test.

A generic floor would serve no

purpose in the FMVSS No. 213

compliance test. FMVSS No. 213

standardizes the method of attachment

to the vehicle seat and requires CRSs to

meet the FMVSS No. 213’s dynamic

performance requirements when

attached to the test seat assembly using

the standardized attachments (seat belt

assembly; child restraint anchorage

system). Standardization increases the

likelihood of correct installation of child

restraints, as consumers do not need to

learn novel ways of installing child

restraints each time a new child

restraint is used. Standardization also

ensures that the minimum level of

protection provided by FMVSS No. 213

will be provided by each child restraint

installed in every vehicle. The

standardized attachment does not

involve the vehicle floor. The presence

of a floor structure on the FMVSS No.

213 seat assembly is not a matter of

significance for the standard’s

compliance test as CRSs are tested

today.

In asking for a floor, Volvo impliedly

asks that CRSs should be permitted to

use a ‘‘support leg’’ in the test to meet

the minimum performance requirements

of the standard. The Agency denies this

request for several reasons. FMVSS No.

213 is written to prevent vehicle-

specific CRSs, since the risk of misuse

in a vehicle for which a CRS is not

designed is high in this country. This is

a concern when the leg is needed to

meet the minimum performance

requirements of the standard.

58

Consumers might use the CRS in

vehicles that may not be compatible

with the use of a leg; using the CRS in

a vehicle whose floor differs from the

Volvo floor could have negative safety

consequences when the floor

attachment is needed to meet the

minimum performance requirements of

the standard. Or, consumers may not

properly use a support leg. They might

forget to use it, or might not attach it

correctly to the vehicle floor. Data from

NHTSA’s NCRUSS and IIHS, discussed

above, show that there already exists a

problem of consumers not using the

CRS top tether. Volvo did not provide

any information showing that

consumers in this country would use

the leg correctly.

NHTSA also notes that Volvo did not

suggest how the floor should be

specified on the standard seat assembly.

Under the FMVSSs, the strength and

configuration of the vehicle’s belt

system and child restraint anchorage

system are standardized to ensure the

vehicle attachments are sufficient to

withstand the occupied CRS’s dynamic

loads during a crash. The attachment

strategies specified in the FMVSSs do

not involve compressive loading to the

vehicle floor, such as resulting from a

support leg of a CRS. The FMVSSs also

have no performance requirements for

the vehicle floor to ensure stable

installation of a support leg and

sufficient rigor to withstand loading

from a leg during a crash. NHTSA is

concerned that the floor of some

vehicles, such as those with a storage

compartment under the seat, may not be

strong enough to withstand the dynamic

loads from a support leg. The

petitioner’s request to allow the floor to

contribute to the performance of the

CRS introduces unacceptable

uncertainty that the CRS would provide

the requisite minimum protection in the

real world.

By stating that only the standardized

means of attachment will be used in the

compliance test, FMVSS No. 213

ensures that the performance of the

child restraint in providing the

minimum level of safety mandated by

the standard is not dependent on a

supplementary device that is suitable

for only certain vehicle makes and

models and that may or may not be used

by the consumer. Since a support leg is

not used in the standard’s compliance

test, a floor on the seat assembly is

unnecessary. Accordingly, NHTSA

denies the request to add a floor to the

sled used in the FMVSS No. 213

compliance test.

VI. No Safety Need to Increase Crash

Pulse

a. Introduction

As part of NHTSA’s effort to ensure

FMVSS No. 213 continues to drive

effective CRS performance in today’s

vehicle environment, the Agency

examined the sufficiency of the FMVSS

No. 213 sled acceleration pulse and 48

km/h (30 mph) test velocity used in

compliance testing. NHTSA has

evaluated this aspect of the test

procedure in each of the Agency’s

recurring retrospective reviews of the

standard.

In 2003, NHTSA considered

increasing the severity of FMVSS No.

213’s sled acceleration pulse but

decided against such a change. Instead,

the Agency redesigned the pulse and

established a corridor around it to allow

the Agency to conduct compliance tests

at velocities closer to the 48 km/h (30

mph) velocity specified in the

standard.

59

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69404

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

mph) ‘‘with the acceleration of the test platform

entirely within the curve shown in . . . Figure 2A.’’

60

To illustrate, SafetyBeltSafe commented that a

velocity increase would make products more

expensive and would not significantly improve CRS

performance in the real world. The University of

Michigan Transportation Research Institute

(UMTRI) stated that its review of NASS data files

indicated that a 48 km/h (30 mph) change in

velocity was more severe than at least 98 percent

of frontal impact crashes involving children

nationwide. UMTRI was concerned that increasing

the velocity of the test is not likely to increase

safety, but will increase consumer cost of CRSs and

may lead to CRS designs that could make the

restraints less effective or more easily misused at

lower severity crashes, which occur much more

frequently. IIHS stated that its review of NASS

cases showed that CRSs designed to pass the

current 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test are providing

very good protection to children in frontal crashes

and that there was no evidence that designing CRSs

to withstand higher crash forces could have

prevented or mitigated any of the serious or fatal

injuries in the reviewed NASS cases. The only

commenter supporting an increase in the FMVSS

No. 213 pulse was ARCCA Inc., which believed that

the standard’s pulse led to test velocities that were

less severe than 48 km/h (30 mph) rigid barrier

vehicle crash test acceleration pulses. (Docket No.

NHTSA–2002–11707.)

61

FMVSS No. 208 sets forth vehicle frontal crash

tests for evaluating occupant protection for adult

passengers. Examples of vehicle countermeasures

used to meet the requirements include lap/shoulder

seat belts, belt tensioning devices, frontal head and

thorax air bag systems, improved passenger

compartment integrity and vehicle front-end

crumple zones.

62

Traffic Safety Facts—Children 2013 Data.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/

ViewPublication/812154. Last accessed on August

23, 2016.

In that 2003 rulemaking proceeding,

NHTSA requested comment on the

corridor for the acceleration pulse and

on the severity of the crash pulse.

Commenters from all segments of the

child passenger safety community were

almost unanimous opposing an increase

in the severity of the crash pulse.

Commenters were concerned that an

increase in the severity of the pulse

would lead to higher costs and reduced

usability of child restraints with

minimal or no increase in benefits.

60

After reviewing the comments and

other factors, NHTSA decided not to

increase the severity of the sled

acceleration pulse. The Agency

determined that increasing the severity

could necessitate the redesign of many

CRSs and increase costs of CRSs

without a commensurate safety benefit.

In that rulemaking, the Agency

determined that the FMVSS No. 213

sled acceleration pulse was severe,

similar to rigid barrier crash test

accelerations of SUVs and trucks. Its

severity was appropriately high to

ensure that CRSs would maintain their

structural integrity in just about all

crashes involving children, and limit

forces to the child’s head, neck, and

torso to reasonable levels, no matter

what vehicle the child is in.

In preparing this NPRM, NHTSA

again investigated the sufficiency of the

FMVSS No. 213 sled acceleration pulse,

particularly vis-a

`-vis an evolving

occupant protection environment. Since

the 2003 final rule, the stringency of the

belted test of FMVSS No. 208,

‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ was

increased from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 56

km/h (35 mph),

61

which raised the

question whether FMVSS No. 213’s

frontal test speed should be increased as

well. In addition, more vehicles have

become stiffer and/or smaller with high

G crash acceleration pulses, and new

kinds of CRSs have emerged for older

and heavier children. With those

developments in mind, NHTSA

reevaluated the FMVSS No. 213 sled

acceleration pulse and test velocity.

Guiding Principles

As stated earlier in this preamble, real

world data show CRSs to be highly

effective in reducing fatalities and

injuries in motor vehicle crashes.

NHTSA estimates that for children less

than 1 year old, a CRS can reduce the

risk of fatality by 71 percent when used

in a passenger car and by 58 percent

when used in a pickup truck, van, or

SUV (light truck). Child restraint

effectiveness for children between the

ages 1 to 4 is 54 percent in passenger

cars and 59 percent in light trucks.

62

These effectiveness estimates would be

further enhanced if the misuse rate of

CRSs is reduced.

Given that CRSs are already highly

effective, the Agency carefully considers

the unintended impacts of any

rulemaking purporting to enhance CRS

safety. Any enhancement that would

markedly raise the price of the restraints

could potentially have an adverse effect

on their sales. The net effect on safety

could be negative if the effect of sales

losses exceeds the benefit of the

improved performance of the restraints

that are purchased. In addition, NHTSA

also considers the effects of improved

performance on the ease of using child

restraints. If the use of CRSs becomes

overly complex or unwieldy, the dual

problems of misuse and nonuse of CRSs

could be exacerbated. Thus, in

considering the safety impacts of its

efforts on FMVSS No. 213, the agency

weighs those improvements against

impacts on the price of restraints and

CRS ease-of-use.

With these guiding principles in

mind, the agency evaluated the

sufficiency of the current FMVSS No.

213 sled acceleration pulse and test

velocity. NHTSA analyzed real world

crash data, the regulations of other

countries, and sled test data from tests

the Agency conducted on the

performance of CRSs when tested to

different crash test speeds and sled

acceleration pulses.

b. Safety Need—Crash Data Analysis

To learn more about the crash speeds

of frontal crashes in which children are

involved and to compare these to

crashes involving older occupants,

NHTSA analyzed the NASS–CDS data

files for years 2008 to 2012 to determine

the change in velocity distribution of

non-rollover frontal crashes. During this

5-year period, there were 754 restrained

children 12 years old (12–YO) and

younger who were occupants of light

passenger vehicles involved in non-

rollover frontal crashes with a known

(estimated) change in velocity. During

this same 5-year period, there were

7,749 older occupants (restrained

occupants older than 12 years of age)

who were occupants of light passenger

vehicles involved in non-rollover frontal

crashes with a known (estimated)

change in velocity.

The analysis found that 99.47 percent

of restrained children 12–YO and

younger were involved in frontal

crashes of speeds of 48 km/h (30 mph)

or less, and 99.57 percent of such

children were involved in frontal

crashes of speeds of 56 km/h (35 mph)

or less. In comparison, for older

restrained occupants involved in frontal

crashes, 98.5 percent and 99.27 percent

were in crashes of speeds of 48 km/h (30

mph) or less and 56 km/h (35 mph) or

less, respectively (Table 6).

T

ABLE

6—C

HANGE IN VELOCITY IN

TOWAWAY

,

NON ROLLOVER

,

FRONTAL

CRASHES WITH KNOWN CHANGE IN

VELOCITY VALUES

[NASS–CDS 2008–2012] *

DV ≤30

mph

(%)

DV ≤35

mph

(%)

Restrained Children

(0–12 yrs) .............. 99.47 99.57

Other Restrained Oc-

cupants .................. 98.5 99.27

* unweighted data (754 restrained children

0–12 years old, 7,749 others)

These data indicate that the 48 km/h

(30 mph) sled test in FMVSS No. 213

ensures that CRSs are exposed to a crash

condition which is at least as severe as

99.47 percent of such real-world

incidents involving restrained children

ages 0 to 12–YO, and that an increase in

test speed to 56.3 km/h (35 mph) will

only marginally increase the crashes

covered by the standard. In contrast,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69405

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

63

The analysis was conducted with unweighted

data assuming random sample selection.

64

NASS–CDS data file 2005–2009, 79 FR 4577.

65

NHTSA’s Crash Injury Research and

Engineering Network (CIREN) combines data

collection with professional multidisciplinary

analysis of medical and engineering evidence to

determine injury causation in every crash

investigation conducted.

66

Children in CRSs include children that may or

may not be restrained by the internal harness of a

CRS or the seat belt when using a booster seat.

67

‘‘Findings of the National Child Restraint Use

Special Study (NCRUSS),’’ DOT HS 812 142. May

2015. NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally-

representative survey that involves both an

inspection of the child passenger’s restraint system

by a technician and a detailed interview of the

driver. The survey collected information on drivers

and their child passengers of ages 0–8 years

between June and August 2011. NCRUSS data were

collected at 24 primary sampling units (PSUs)

across the country. The PSUs were previously

established from a separate ongoing data collection

effort, the National Automotive Sampling System

(NASS). The PSUs are defined geographically,

similar to cities or counties. The PSUs were

selected to cover urban, rural, and suburban

environments and are located in 17 different States.

98.5 and 99.27 percent of older

restrained occupants are involved in

crashes with a change in velocity up to

48 km/h (30 mph) and 56.3 km/h (35

mph), respectively. The fraction of

restrained children with change in

velocity over 48 km/h (30 mph) (0.53

percent) is lower than that for older

restrained occupants (1.5 percent), and

this difference between the two groups

is statistically significant.

63

Likewise,

the estimate for the fraction of

restrained children with change in

velocity over 56 km/h (35 mph) (0.43

percent) is lower than that for older

occupants (0.73 percent), and this

difference between the two groups is

statistically significant.

These results reveal that restrained

children are more involved in lower-

severity crashes than older occupants.

The percentage of frontal crashes of

restrained children covered by the 48

km/h (30 mph) sled test (99.47 percent)

is greater than the percentage of frontal

crashes of older occupants (99.27

percent) covered by the 56 km/h (35

mph) vehicle crash test. The data show

that the current FMVSS No. 213 48 km/

h (30 mph) sled test velocity does not

equate to a diminished level of safety for

restrained children as compared to older

vehicle occupants. In fact, it could be

argued that FMVSS No. 213’s 48 km/h

(30 mph) test provides a higher degree

of protection than the 56 km/h (35 mph)

test of FMVSS No. 208 in terms of the

breadth of the crashes they cover

involving the relevant restrained

population.

c. Hard Copy Review of Case Files

While a 56 km/h (35 mph) change in

velocity would only cover an additional

0.1 percent of the crashes involving

restrained children, NHTSA undertook

a review of case files to determine

whether a change in velocity could have

possibly prevented fatal or serious

injury to children involved in the

additional 0.1 percent of crashes.

Among children 0–12 YO restrained by

CRSs in passenger vehicles, about 72 are

killed in crashes annually and about 634

sustain AIS 2+ injury.

64

To better

understand the reason for injuries and

fatalities among CRS-restrained children

in frontal crashes, the agency reviewed

all NASS–CDS and Crash Injury

Research and Engineering Network

(CIREN)

65

data files for the years 2003

to 2013 for instances in which children

12–YO and younger in CRSs

66

in rear

seats of light passenger vehicles

sustained AIS 3+ injuries in frontal

crashes without rollover. Only those

cases in which the change in velocity

exceeded 40 km/h (25 mph) were

considered to eliminate low severity

impacts where injuries were likely due

to factors such as the child being

improperly restrained, or cases where

information was unavailable to assess

crash severity and cause of injury.

There were 18 cases that met these

selection criteria for the years 2003–

2013. Table 7 shows a summary of the

case review of the 18 cases.

T

ABLE

7—NASS–CDS & CIREN (2003–2013) C

ASE

R

EVIEW

: C

HILDREN

12–YO

AND

Y

OUNGER

R

ESTRAINED IN

CRS

S

W

ITH

AIS 3+ I

NJURIES IN

F

RONTAL

I

MPACT

W

ITHOUT

R

OLLOVER

W

ITH A

C

HANGE IN

V

ELOCITY

G

REATER

T

HAN

40

KM

/

H

(25

MPH

)

Cause of AIS 3+ Injuries Total Percentage

Gross CRS Misuse .................................................................................................................................................. 7 39

Exceedingly Severe ................................................................................................................................................. 4 22

Intrusion of the Front Seat Back ............................................................................................................................. 3 17

Cargo intrusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 6

Bracing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 6

Could not be determined ......................................................................................................................................... 2 11

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 18 100

The most frequent cause of AIS 3+

injury to children was gross CRS

misuse. Gross CRS misuse included

children restrained in a CRS intended

for larger/heavier children, infant seat

with the carrying handle improperly

stowed, booster seats with only the lap

belt used to restrain the child, and

booster seat with no seat belt used. The

second most frequent cause of AIS 3+

injury to CRS-restrained children was

that the crash was exceedingly severe

(beyond the severity of a 56 km/h (35

mph) frontal crash).

In three cases, the front seat back

intruded into the restrained child’s

occupant space resulting in head or leg

injuries. In one case, the child’s right

humerus was fractured due to intrusion

of cargo from the trunk of the vehicle.

In another case, the child’s arms were

braced against the front seat back before

the impact and the child sustained arm

fractures during the crash. The cause for

injury in the remaining two cases could

not be determined due to lack of

evidence and/or missing or unknown

data.

This hard copy case review indicates

that AIS 3+ injuries to CRS-restrained

children in frontal crashes are due to

CRS misuse (39 percent), excessively

severe crashes (beyond 56 km/h (35

mph) crash severity) (22 percent), and

other factors unrelated to crash severity

or CRS misuse. There is no indication

that a CRS designed to meet a 56 km/

h (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 compliance

test would have prevented any of these

injuries.

The findings from the hard copy

review are in accordance with the

findings from NHTSA’s National Child

Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS)

that shows that car seat and booster seat

misuse in the field is 46 percent, and

that CRS misuse is a more frequent

causal factor for AIS 3+ injury to

restrained children than the severity of

the crash.

67

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69406

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

68

Japan, Korea, and China adopted ECE R.44 or

a regulation based on the ECE R.44.

69

Regulation No. 129—Enhanced Child Restraint

Systems (ECRS). Since July 2013, CRSs in Europe

(and other countries) can be approved in

accordance with the new UN Regulation No. 129 for

CRSs, also known as ‘‘I-Size Regulation.’’ R.129

requires all children under 15 months to be

transported rear facing, adds requirement for

vehicle CRS compatibility, and has a dynamic test

for side impact protection. In contrast, ECE.R44

categorizes CRSs by weight groups and does not

have a side impact test.

70

The proposed test bench frame was not ready

at the time the 56 km/h (35 mph) tests were

performed. However, since the proposed seat

assembly geometry is not significantly different

from the current FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly

geometry, NHTSA believes the results are

comparable to a test performed in the proposed

upgraded seat assembly.

d. Globally, All Regulations Use a 30

MPH Test Speed

In considering the sufficiency of the

FMVSS No. 213 test speed, NHTSA

examined the regulations for child

restraint systems that are implemented

in other countries. The review found

that the frontal sled tests in all the CRS

standards simulate a 48–50 km/h (30—

31.0 mph) crash (see Table 8).

T

ABLE

8—T

EST

S

PEED OF

F

RONTAL

S

LED

T

ESTS IN

CRS S

TANDARDS

F

ROM

D

IFFERENT

C

OUNTRIES

Standard Type of test Speed km/h Speed mph

UNECE R.44

68

& R.129

69

(Europe) ........................................................................ Sled Test ........................... 50 31.0

Australia AS 1754 .................................................................................................... Sled Test ........................... 49 30.4

FMVSS/Canadian MVSS No. 213 ........................................................................... Sled Test ........................... 48.2 30.0

At the same time, the crash pulse

used in FMVSS No. 213 appears more

severe than that of the European and

Australian regulations. Generally, for a

given crash speed, vehicle crash

acceleration pulses with higher peak

acceleration, higher initial rise rate, and

shorter duration are more severe and

demanding on restraint systems. The

peak acceleration of the FMVSS No. 213

sled pulse is comparable to that of the

sled pulses used in other countries. The

FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse corridor has

a very rapid rise reaching peak

acceleration much sooner than the ECE

R.44/R.129 or the Australian

regulations. The rapid initial rise in

acceleration and the short duration of

the FMVSS No. 213 acceleration pulse

is also characteristic of more recent

smaller passenger car models with stiff

front-ends in the U.S. fleet. The

duration of the FMVSS No. 213 pulse

and the Australian regulation are

comparable but much shorter than the

ECE R.44/R.129. The Canadian standard

(CMVSS No. 213) uses the same sled

acceleration pulse corridor as that

specified in FMVSS No. 213.

Figure 6 shows the frontal sled pulses

used in FMVSS/CMVSS No. 213,

UNECE R44/R129 and the Australian

regulations.

e. Sled Testing of CRSs

NHTSA tested different kinds of CRSs

in FMVSS No. 213-type sled tests at

56.3 km/h (35 mph) and 48 km/h (30

mph) change of velocities. The Agency

tested the CRSs on a sled assembly

comprising the current FMVSS No. 213

standard seat assembly frame

70

and the

NHTSA-Woodbridge seat cushion. To

assess how CRSs would perform when

subjected to a 56 km/h (35 mph) pulse,

the agency developed five pulses using

passenger vehicle crash pulses of

vehicles tested to the 56 km/h (35 mph)

frontal barrier test of NHTSA’s New Car

Assessment Program (NCAP).

Table 9 below shows the velocity,

crash pulse duration, and peak

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.012</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69407

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

71

Average crash acceleration time histories from

MY 2012 passenger vehicles in NCAP frontal crash

tests.

72

68 FR 37640.

acceleration for each of the five sled

acceleration pulses. The first row in

Table 9 sets forth the characteristics of

the current FMVSS No. 213 sled

acceleration pulse, and the last row

shows the characteristics of the average

acceleration pulse of MY 2012

passenger vehicles in the 56 km/h (35

mph) NCAP frontal crash test. Figure 7

shows the sled acceleration pulse

profiles.

T

ABLE

9—S

LED AND

V

EHICLE

A

CCELERATION

P

ULSE

C

HARACTERISTICS

Pulse Velocity (mph) Duration (ms) Peak acceleration (G)

213 ................................................................................................................... 29.7 81 23.0

A ....................................................................................................................... 34.3 91 33.5

B ....................................................................................................................... 35.0 95 31.5

C ...................................................................................................................... 34.3–34.6 101–103 29.0–29.3

D ...................................................................................................................... 34.4–35.0 100–105 26.9–29.0

E ....................................................................................................................... 34.5–34.8 111 25.6–25.8

Average NCAP

71

............................................................................................. 35.0 104 32.0

In the 2003 final rule (supra),

72

the

Agency identified factors of the

acceleration pulse associated with crash

severity: change in velocity, peak

acceleration, and acceleration pulse

duration. Generally, for the same change

in velocity, acceleration pulses of higher

peak acceleration and shorter duration

are higher in crash severity. The 2003

final rule also identified a rapid rise in

initial acceleration to be associated with

higher crash severity. Applying these

criteria to the acceleration pulses shown

in Table 9 and Figure 7, pulse A could

be the most severe and E the least

severe. Although the current FMVSS

No. 213 acceleration pulse (see Figure 7)

has lower peak Gs and a lower change

in velocity than the other 5 sled

acceleration pulses (A through E), the

FMVSS No. 213 pulse is reasonably

severe because of the rapid rise in

acceleration in the initial portion of the

pulse (for comparison, see acceleration

pulses D and E).

The sled acceleration pulses A, B, and

C have a pulse shape and peak

acceleration level similar to the 2012

NCAP average crash pulse. They have a

sharp decline to approximately 17g then

a gradual decline to approximately 35 g.

Sled acceleration pulses D and E have

a smoother sinusoidal shape with lower

peak acceleration levels.

Forward-Facing CRSs

NHTSA tested three forward-facing

CRSs equipped with internal harnesses

on the sled using the five different 56.3

km/h (35 mph) sled pulses and the

FMVSS No. 213 48 km/h (30 mph) pulse

and the HIII–3YO and HIII–6YO

dummies. The CRSs were attached to

the standard seat assembly using the

child restraint anchorage system

(‘‘LATCH’’ lower anchors and tether).

Test results showed the HIII–6YO

dummy exhibiting unrepresentative

kinematics during the test. In some

tests, severe head-to-knee contact

occurred due to the legs of the dummy

rotating upwards during the test. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.013</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69408

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

Agency deemed this kinematic to be

unrepresentative as it is unlikely that

the legs of a 6YO child in a vehicle

would rotate upwards; the front seat

structure would impede such rotation.

(The Agency attempted to retest the

CRSs with the legs of the HIII–6YO tied

to the seat assembly, but sometimes this

did not prevent the legs from rotating

upwards.)

The Radian 65 model was tested with

pulse E (with and without legs

restrained) and in both tests the HIII–

6YO dummy head and chest injury

measures exceeded the allowable

threshold levels (see Table 10). The

Radian 65 model was also tested with

pulse D and the dummy’s chest

acceleration exceeded threshold levels

while HIC was barely within the

threshold level (98.1 percent of 1,000

threshold level). There was chin-to-

chest contact for the HIII–6YO dummy

in the tests with the Radian 65 that

resulted in high head and chest injury

measures.

The Graco MyRide 65 was tested in 4

pulse types (A, C, D, and E) with the

HIII–6YO dummy. In tests with pulses

A, C, and D, the dummy’s HIC value

exceeded the injury threshold level of

1,000 due to head-to-knee contact.

When tested with the HIII–6YO dummy

with pulse E, HIC and chest acceleration

threshold levels were met, but HIC

reached 993 (99.3 percent of 1,000

injury threshold). On average, in sled

tests of the Graco MyRide 65, HIC

values were 72 percent greater, chest

acceleration were 16 percent higher,

head excursions were 24 percent higher,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.014</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69409

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

73

The agency is unable to estimate the number

of CRS models that would need redesign due to the

limited nature of the agency’s testing.

74

The initial standard seat assembly design (V1)

used in these sled tests only differed from the

proposed standard seat assembly (V2) in minor

ways. The initial standard seat assembly used in

these sled tests had a shorter seat back height and

slightly different seat belt and child restraint

anchorage locations. NHTSA performed tests on the

proposed standard seat assembly (V2) of some of

the CRSs that were tested on V1 standard seat

assembly; results showed no significant difference

Continued

and knee excursions were 32 percent

higher in tests with the 56 km/h (35

mph) sled pulses than in the

corresponding tests with the FMVSS

No. 213 sled pulse.

The Graco ComfortSport CRS was

tested using the HIII–3YO dummy with

acceleration pulses B, C, and D. The

CRS met the HIC and chest acceleration

performance criteria; however, HIC and

head excursions were at elevated levels

near the performance limits. HIC values

were on average 65 percent greater and

head excursions were 30 percent higher

in tests with the 56 km/h (35 mph) sled

pulses than in the corresponding tests

with the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse.

Rear-Facing and Booster Seats

NHTSA tested two rear-facing CRSs

with the current FMVSS No. 213

acceleration and acceleration pulse C,

using the HIII–3YO and CRABI–12MO

dummies. Results showed no

performance measures exceeding their

corresponding threshold levels.

However, HIC (953) was very close to

the threshold value in the test with the

infant carrier (Peg Perego Viaggio) with

the CRABI–12MO dummy.

NHTSA also conducted nine tests of

the Evenflo Big Kid High Back Booster

Seat with pulses A, B, C, D, and E, and

three tests of the Evenflo Big Kid

Backless Booster seat with pulses D and

E. This test series used the HIII–6YO

and HIII–10YO dummies. All the

performance measures were within

threshold levels in these tests. However,

HIC was about 52 percent higher in tests

with the 56 km/h sled pulse compared

to the current FMVSS No. 213 sled

acceleration pulse.

Summary of Sled Test Data

The tests conducted at 48.3 km/h (30

mph) and 56.3 km/h (35 mph) indicate

that increasing the test speed to 56.3

km/h (35 mph):

•Results in a high rate of failures of

forward-facing CRSs tested with the

HIII–6YO test dummy. This suggests

that most forward-facing CRSs that are

subject to testing with the HIII–6YO

dummy would need redesigning to meet

HIC and chest acceleration performance

criteria. Alternatively, CRS

manufacturers might choose not to sell

forward-facing CRSs that are subject to

testing with the HIII–6YO dummy, i.e.,

CRSs recommended for use by children

weighing over 18.2 kg (40 lb),

73

which

would reduce the availability of those

CRSs to the public.

•Causes unrepresentative head-to-

knee contacts that result in high HIC

values in convertible CRSs tested in a

forward-facing configuration with the

HIII–6YO. Real world data indicate that

while head-to-knee contacts may be

present in the real world during a crash,

they do not result in head injuries.

•Causes unrepresentative head-to-

chest contact for the HIII–6YO dummy

in forward-facing CRSs that result in

high head and chest injury measures.

•Results in injury measures closer to

the standard’s limit in some rear-facing

CRSs and booster seats. This suggests

that some rear-facing CRSs and booster

seats may need modification.

f. Agency Decision

As discussed above, after reviewing

real world crash data, regulations of

other countries, and sled test data, the

Agency has decided not to increase the

test velocity of FMVSS No. 213 to 56.3

km/h (35 mph). To summarize, the

reasons are as follows:

•CRSs are already highly effective in

preventing injuries and fatalities in

motor vehicle crashes. NASS–CDS data

files show that restrained children are

more involved in lower-severity crashes

than older occupants. The percentage of

frontal crashes of restrained children

covered by the 48 km/h (30 mph) sled

test is greater than the percentage of

frontal crashes of restrained older

occupants covered by the 56 km/h (35

mph) vehicle crash test. The FMVSS No.

213 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test velocity

does not equate to a diminished level of

safety for restrained children as

compared to older vehicle occupants. In

fact, it could be argued that FMVSS No.

213’s 48 km/h (30 mph) test provides a

higher degree of protection than the 56

km/h (35 mph) test of FMVSS No. 208

in terms of the breadth of the crashes

they cover involving the relevant

restrained population.

•There is no safety need to raise the

FMVSS No. 213 test speed to 56 km/h

(35 mph). A 56 km/h (35 mph) change

in velocity would only cover an

additional 0.1 percent of the crashes

involving restrained children, which

suggests that the benefits accrued from

a higher test velocity would be very

small. While only an additional 0.1

percent of the crashes would be

covered, NHTSA undertook a review of

case files to determine whether a change

in velocity could have possibly

prevented fatal or serious injury to

children involved in the additional 0.1

percent of crashes. The review showed

that AIS 3+ injuries to CRS restrained

children in frontal crashes are due to

CRS misuse, excessively severe crashes

beyond 56 km/h (35 mph) crash

severity, and other factors unrelated to

crash severity. There is no indication

that a CRS designed to meet a 56.3 km/

h (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 compliance

test would have prevented or mitigated

any of these injuries.

•It is unclear whether a 56 km/h (35

mph) test velocity is appropriate for the

FMVSS No. 213 sled test environment

with the larger size dummies. The test

dummies used in the test showed

possible unrepresentative dummy

kinematics (exacerbated head-to-knee or

chin-to-chest contact) that result in high

injury measures near or above the

established threshold limits.

•There may be unintended safety

consequences associated with raising

the FMVSS No. 213 test speed to 56 km/

h (35 mph). The Agency’s sled tests

conducted with various crash pulses of

a 56 km/h (35mph) change in velocity

indicate that the designs of many

forward-facing CRSs would need to be

changed to comply with performance

requirements of a 56 km/h (35 mph)

sled velocity test. The testing also

suggests that some rear-facing CRSs and

booster seats may need design

modifications. The design changes may

increase the weight, cost, and size of

these CRSs. NHTSA is concerned that

the design changes could potentially

reduce the usability of CRSs, resulting

in non-use or misuse of child restraints

for no real benefit. In addition, there is

a concern that CRSs redesigned to meet

increased test velocities may not

perform as well in the more common

low speed crashes.

•The current 48 km/h (30 mph)

FMVSS No. 213 sled test velocity is

similar, if not more severe, than those in

CRS regulations of other countries. It

may be considered more severe because

of its rapid initial rise in acceleration

and its short duration.

Accordingly, after consideration of

these factors, NHTSA has decided that

raising the FMVSS No. 213 test speed to

56 km/h (35 mph) is unwarranted at this

time.

VII. Fleet Testing of CRSs on the New

Seat Assembly Designs

a. Initial Standard Seat Assembly

Design (V1)

NHTSA sled tested a wide array of

CRSs to see how they performed on the

initial seat assembly design

74

(referred

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69410

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

in CRS performance on the two standard seat

assemblies. These results are discussed in the next

section. Because there were no significant

differences in CRS performance on the two seat

assemblies, the agency considers the results of CRS

tests on V1 relevant in ascertaining the performance

of CRSs on V2.

75

A combination CRS is a type of forward-facing

car seat that is used with an internal harness system to secure a child. With removal of the internal

harness, it can be used as a belt-positioning booster.

to in this NPRM as Version 1 (V1)). The

V1 seat assembly design drawings were

placed in Docket No. NHTSA–2013–

0055–0002 on May 17, 2015. The tests

were conducted with an acceleration

pulse within the FMVSS No. 213

specified acceleration corridor, with a

peak acceleration of 21.2 g and average

sled velocity of 46.9 km/h (29.2 mph).

All CRSs met the current FMVSS No.

213 performance requirements, as well

as the proposed head excursion

requirement for forward-facing CRSs in

the untethered condition.

The study consisted of 53 tests of 23

CRS models of 12 different makes (i.e.

Chicco, Britax, Evenflo, etc.). The

Agency

75

and booster type CRSs. The

Agency selected CRSs based on: Sales

volume; CRS types, makes and models;

CRS weight; CRS child weight/height

recommendations; variety of design

(different belt path location, base size

for rear-facing only CRSs); and special

features (such as an inflatable feature,

presence of a support leg and of rigid

attachments to child restraint anchorage

systems). The CRSs represented a wide

variety of CRSs from different

manufacturers and are representative of

the range of CRSs in the current market.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69411

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

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.015</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69412

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

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.016</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69413

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.017</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69414

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

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.

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.018</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69415

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.019</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69416

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

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69417

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

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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.020</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69418

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69419

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.021</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69420

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.022</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69421

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.023</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69422

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.024</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69423

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

(CV) of the injury measures was under 10 percent, which is repeatable (see

Table 18).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.025</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69424

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

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.

77

NPRM, February 19, 1991, 56 FR 6603, 6604.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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—

[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.

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69425

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

81

The average recall completion rate for vehicles

for the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015 is 79

percent.

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.

83

Final rule, 57 FR 41428, September 10, 1992.

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.

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

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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69426

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

84

Typographical errors would be corrected, such

as the spelling of the words ‘‘postage’’ and

‘‘mailed.’’

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.

86

See S5.5.2(m) and S5.5.5(k).

87

See S5.6.1.7 and S5.6.2.2.

88

https://www.safercar.gov/parents/CarSeats/

Right-Car-Seat-Age-Size.htm?view=full.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69427

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.026</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69428

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

92

A 50th percentile 48-month-old weighs 16.1 kg

(35.5 lb).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 ll inches (ll 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69429

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

specific detail on what topic in the manual was

reviewed.

96

As a practical matter, most CRS would be

subject to testing using at least two ATDs since most

CRS are sold for children of weights spanning more

than one weight category. A CRS that is

recommended for a weight range that overlaps, in

whole or in part, two or more of the weight ranges

is subject to testing with the ATDs specified for

each of those ranges (571.213, S7).

97

An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed

to be readily used in and outside of the vehicle. It

has a carrying handle that enables caregivers to tote

the CRS plus child outside of the vehicle.

The Agency believes that height

information should be permanently

attached to the CRS where it is readily

available and easily accessible.

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.

T

ABLE

19—C

URRENT

U

SE OF

D

UMMIES

B

ASED ON

M

ANUFACTURER

’

S

W

EIGHT

R

ECOMMENDATION

[571.213, S7]

CRS recommended for use by children of these weights— Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs (subparts refer to

49 CFR part 572)

Weight (W) ≤5 kg (11 lb), Height (H) ≤650 mm (25.5 inches) ................. Newborn (subpart K).

Weight 5 kg (11 lb) <W ≤10 kg (22 lb), Height 650 mm (25.5 inches)

<H ≤850 mm (33.5 inches). Newborn (subpart K), CRABI–12MO (subpart R).

Weight 10 kg (22 lb) <W ≤18.2 kg (40 lb), Height 850 mm (33.5

inches) <H ≤1100 mm (43.3 inches). CRABI–12MO (subpart R), HIII–3YO (subpart P).

Weight 18kg (40 lb) <W ≤22.7 kg (50 lb), Height 1100 mm (43.3

inches) <H ≤1250 mm (49.2 inches). HIII–6YO (subpart N) or H2–6YO (subpart I) (manufacturer’s option).

Weight 22.7 kg (50 lb) <W ≤30 kg (65 lb), Height 1100 mm (43.3

inches) <H ≤1250 mm (49.2 inches). HIII–6YO (subpart N) or H2–6YO (subpart I) (manufacturer’s option),

and weighted HIII–6YO (subpart S).

Weight greater than 30 kg (65 lb), Height greater than 1250 mm (49.2

inches). HIII–10YO (subpart T).*

* No HIC measured with HIII–10YO.

(Note: CRSs with internal harnesses that weigh more than 30 kg (65 lb) with an ATD are not tested with that ATD on the child restraint an-

chorage system of the standard seat assembly.)

b. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing

10–13.6 kg (22–30 lb)

Currently under FMVSS No. 213,

CRSs labeled for use by children in the

weight range 10 kg to 18.2 kg (22 lb to

40 lb) are subject to testing with the

CRABI 12MO and the HIII–3YO dummy

(S7.1.2(c)). This NPRM proposes to

amend these specifications so that child

restraints would not be subject to testing

with the 3YO dummy unless the

recommended weights of children for

whom the CRS is marketed is 13.6 to

18.2 kg (30—40 lb). NHTSA proposes

this change because, as a practical

matter, 3YOs are too large to fit in a CRS

recommended for children in the lower

end of the 10 to 18.2 kg (22—40 lb)

weight range. The intent of this change

is to reduce unnecessary test burdens.

NHTSA proposes amending S7.1.2(c) by

splitting the 10 to 18.2 kg (22—40 lb)

weight range into a 10 to 13.6 kg (22—

30 lb) and a 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30—40 lb)

weight range. CRSs recommended for

children in the former range (10 to 13.6

kg (22—30 lb)) would be tested with the

CRABI 12MO, while CRSs for children

in the latter (13.6 to 18.2 kg (30—40 lb))

would be tested with the HIII–3YO.

96

NHTSA is particularly mindful of the

effect the amendment would have on

infant carriers.

97

The current CRS

market has infant carrier models

recommended for children weighing up

to 10 kg (22 lb), 13.6 kg (30 lb), 15.8 kg

(35 lb), and 18.2 kg (40 lb) and with

child height limits ranging from 736 mm

(29 inches) to 889 mm (35 inches).

Absent the amendment, these infant

carriers would be subject to testing with

the HIII–3YO (35 lb) dummy rear-facing.

However, the HIII–3YO dummy (stature

of 945 mm (37.2 inches)) does not fit

easily in infant carriers. Current infant

carriers would also likely fail FMVSS

No. 213’s head containment

requirement (S5.1.3.2) with the HIII–

3YO without substantial redesign that

would add weight, bulk and cost to the

CRS.

Given the purpose of infant carriers,

there does not seem be a safety need

warranting such redesign. Current infant

carriers are convenient to use with

infants and are popular with parents.

The availability and ease-of-use of

current carriers may result in more

infants riding rear-facing than if the

carriers were heavier, bulkier and more

expensive.

NHTSA expects that the proposed

amendment would not necessitate any

design changes in infant carriers.

Currently there are a number of infant

carriers that are marketed for children

weighing up to 15.8 kg (35 lb) or 18.2

kg (40 lb). The Agency expects that

manufacturers will reduce the

maximum weight recommendations

such that the restraints would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69430

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

98

Feedback from child passenger safety

technicians involved in child restraint system

checks indicates that infants usually outgrow infant

carriers because of reaching the height limit of the

carrier rather than the weight limit. Further, as an

infant reaches a 13.6 kg (30 lb) weight, the weight

of the infant and the infant carrier together becomes

too heavy for a caregiver to pull out of the vehicle

and carry around by a handle. Therefore, parents

often switch to a convertible or all-in one CRS as

the child weight nears 13.6 kg (30 lb).

99

The CRABI–12MO is not used to test a booster

seat (S7.1.2(c)).

100

However, if such a CRS were also labeled for

use by children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb),

then the CRS would be subject to testing with the

CRABI–12MO.

101

November 1, 2000, Public Law 106–414, 114

Stat. 1800.

102

Final rule, 68 FR 37620, June 24, 2003.

103

70 FR 44520, July 28, 2005; 73 FR 45355,

August 5, 2008. The Hybrid III ATD was called the

‘‘HIII–6C’’and the Hybrid II was called the ‘‘H2–6C’’

in these documents.

104

76 FR 55825, September 9, 2011.

105

The improvements in the prototype HIII–10YO

LODC dummy include: A head with pediatric mass

properties; a neck that produces head lag with free

Z-axis rotation at the atlanto-occipital joint; a

flexible thoracic spine; multi-point thoracic

deflection measurement capability; skeletal

anthropometry representative of a seated child; and

an abdomen that can directly measure belt loading.

More information on the LODC dummy can be

found at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/

Public%20Meetings/SAE/2016/

Development%20of%20the%20LODC%20ATD-

SAE2016.pdf.

marketed for children up to 13.6 kg (30

lb). Because NHTSA does not believe

that the infant carriers are significantly

used by children weighing more than

13.6 kg (30 lb),

98

the proposed

amendment is not likely to engender an

unfulfilled need for the carriers by over-

13.6 kg (30 lb) children. On the other

hand, if a manufacturer would like to

continue marketing its infant carrier for

children weighing more than 13.6 kg (30

lb), it may do so, provided it can certify

that the CRS can meet the performance

requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when

tested with the HIII–3YO test dummy.

Comments are requested on this issue.

This NPRM also proposes to amend

S7.1.2’s height specifications for testing

with the ATDs so that height categories

are consistent with the corresponding

weight limits. This is to simplify the

standard. This proposal is explained

further below.

Currently S7.1.2(b) specifies that the

newborn and CRABI–12MO dummies

are used to test CRSs recommended for

children in a height range from 650 mm

to 850 mm. The average height of a

12MO child is 750 mm (29.5 inches),

not 850 mm. NHTSA proposes to

change the upper end of that height

range to 750 mm (29.5 inches), to

correspond to the average height of a

12MO child (750 mm (29.5 inches))

(which also is the height of the CRABI–

12MO ATD). The revised height range

would be part of a new S7.1.1(b).

Similarly, as discussed earlier,

proposed S7.1.1(c) specifies that the

CRABI–12MO dummy would be used to

test a CRS recommended for children

weighing 10 to 13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb). A

child weighing 13.6 kg (30 lb) on

average is about 870 mm (34.3 inches)

tall. (The 95th percentile 18MO child

weighs about 13.6 (30 lb) and has a

corresponding height of about 870 mm

(34.3 inches).) Therefore, to make the

height specifications for testing with

ATDs consistent with the corresponding

weight limits, this NPRM proposes that

CRSs would be tested with the CRABI–

12MO if they are recommended for

children in the weight range of up to

13.6 kg (30 lb) or in the height range of

up 870 mm (34.3 inches).

c. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing

13.6–18.2 kg (30–40 lb)

This NPRM proposes amendments

affecting CRSs labeled for use by

children of weights from 13.6 kg to 18.2

kg (30–40 lb). Currently, these CRSs are

subject to testing with the CRABI–12MO

and the HIII–3YO (S7.1.2(c)).

99

NHTSA

has tentatively determined that the

CRSs do not need to be tested with the

CRABI–12MO, since the 10 kg (22 lb)

dummy is not representative of 13.6 to

18.2 kg (30–40 lb) children for whom

the restraint is intended.

100

A new

S7.1.1(d) would apply to these CRSs.

The new S7.1.1(d) would specify that

NHTSA would test CRSs recommended

for children in the weight range of 13.6

kg to 18.2 kg (30—40 lb) with the HIII–

3YO dummy. Also, to make the height

specification for testing with the ATD

consistent with the corresponding

weight limit proposed in S7.1.1(c),

NHTSA proposes to use the HIII–3YO

dummy to test CRSs recommended for

children in the height range of 870 mm

to 1,100 mm (34.3 to 43.3 inches),

instead of 850 mm to 1,100 mm (33.5 to

43.3 inches).

d. Testing CRSs for Children Weighing

18–29.5 kg (40–65 lb)

FMVSS No. 213 currently provides

child restraint manufacturers the option

of having NHTSA use the HIII–6YO or

the H2–6YO in compliance tests of CRSs

for children weighing 18 to 29.5 kg (40

to 65 lb) (S7.1.3). This NPRM proposes

to test these CRSs only with the HIII–

6YO. The HIII–6YO is preferred as it is

a more biofidelic test device than the

H2–6YO dummy, and more and more

CRS manufacturers are using the HIII

rather than the H2–6YO dummy.

Further, it is becoming increasingly

difficult to obtain replacement parts for

the older H2–6YO dummy.

NHTSA adopted the HIII–6YO in

FMVSS No. 213 in response to a

mandate in the Transportation Recall

Enhancement, Accountability and

Documentation (TREAD) Act

101

that

directed NHTSA to consider a number

of rulemakings to improve CRS safety,

including one on incorporating use of

the HIII–6YO in FMVSS No. 213

compliance tests. NHTSA incorporated

the ATD into FMVSS No. 213 after

determining in its rulemaking that the

dummy is ‘‘considerably more

biofidelic’’ than the H2–6YO dummy,

and with enhanced capability to

measure an array of impact responses

never before measured by a child test

dummy, such as neck moments and

chest deflection.

102

Problems arose after adoption of the

HIII–6YO in FMVSS No. 213, however.

The HIII–6YO had been successfully

used in low-risk deployment and static

suppression compliance tests of

advanced air bags under FMVSS No.

208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’

However, in the FMVSS No. 213 test

environment where no air bag is

present, the HIII–6YO exhibited

unrealistic chin-to-chest and head-to-

knee contact in tests of booster seats,

which resulted in inordinately high,

often times failing HIC values recorded

by the dummy.

NHTSA responded by adopting a

provision permitting the optional use of

the H2–6YO dummy in place of the

HIII–6YO. NHTSA originally intended

the matter as an interim measure to

provide manufacturers time to adjust to

the new ATD, and later, on extension,

to provide NHTSA time to develop

seating procedures for the dummy.

103

However, in 2011, NHTSA issued a final

rule to permit optional use of the H2–

6YO ‘‘until further notice.’’ The Agency

announced that, while the HIII–6YO is

an advanced test dummy with state-of-

the-art capabilities and is used by some

CRS manufacturers in certifying

restraints, NHTSA wanted to complete

ongoing efforts to improve the HIII–6YO

dummy to make it more useful as an

FMVSS No. 213 test device before

testing child restraints solely with the

ATD.

104

Since 2011, NHTSA has pursued

long-term improvements to the

biofidelity of the HIII–6YO. Part of

NHTSA’s work involves development of

a Large Omnidirectional Child (LODC)

dummy using the HIII–10YO dummy,

formulating LODC concepts and

mechanisms that can eventually be

adapted to the design of a 6YO

prototype.

105

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69431

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

106

Full detail of the sled tests results are

discussed in Section VII of this preamble, supra.

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.027</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69432

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.028</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69433

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

The average HIC, chest acceleration,

and head and knee excursions are

shown in Table 22.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.029</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69434

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

T

ABLE

22—A

VERAGE

HIC, C

HEST

A

CCELERATION

, H

EAD

E

XCURSION

,

AND

K

NEE

E

XCURSION OF THE

HIII–6YO

ON THE

P

ROPOSED

S

EAT

A

SSEMBLY AND THE

H2–6YO

ON THE

C

URRENT

S

EAT

A

SSEMBLY

U

SING THE

S

AME

B

OOSTER

S

EAT

M

ODEL

ATD HIC

Chest

acceleration Head

excursion Knee

excursion

HIII–6YO on proposed seat assembly ............................... 288 43 g 537 mm 584 mm

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

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.

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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69435

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

116

‘‘Assessment of ATD Selection and Use for

Dynamic Testing of Rear Facing Restraint Systems

Designed for Larger Toddlers,’’ supra.

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.

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.

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).

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.

T

ABLE

23—HIII–3YO R

ESPONSES IN

S

LED

T

ESTS

W

ITH

D

IFFERENT

S

EATING

C

ONFIGURATIONS

UMTRI test number (NT12##) CRS Dummy

configuration

Max seat

back angle

(degrees) HIC

Chest

acceleration

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 Sport .......... A–Baseline ...................... 54 358 41

42 ................................................... Graco Comfort Sport .......... B–Kneestop ..................... 54 350 45

45 ................................................... Graco Comfort Sport .......... C—No leg ........................ 51 364 41

46 ................................................... Graco Comfort Sport .......... D–Shank .......................... 51 436 35

44 ................................................... Graco Comfort Sport .......... E–Bent ............................. 55 334 40

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

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

f. Table Summarizing Proposed

Amendments

Table 24 below illustrates this

NPRM’s proposed weight categories

discussed above.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69436

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

119

69 FR 10928, March 9, 2004.

120

NHTSA letter to IMMI, September 21, 2016

https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14-

001678%20IMMI%20STAR%20crs.htm.

T

ABLE

24—P

ROPOSED

U

SE OF

D

UMMIES

B

ASED ON

M

ANUFACTURER

’

S

W

EIGHT AND

H

EIGHT

R

ECOMMENDATIONS

CRS recommended for use by children of these weights and heights— Are compliance tested by NHTSA with these ATDs (subparts refer to

49 CFR part 572)

Weight (W) ≤5 kg (11 lb), Height (H) ≤650 mm (25.5 inches) ................. Newborn (subpart K).

Weight 5 kg (11 lb) <W ≤10 kg (22 lb), Height 650 mm (25.5 inches)

<H ≤750 mm (29.5 inches). Newborn (subpart K), CRABI–12MO (subpart R).

Weight 10 kg (22 lb) <W ≤13.6 kg (30 lb), Height 750 mm (29.5

inches) <H ≤870 mm (34.3 inches). CRABI–12MO (subpart R).

Weight 13.6 kg (30 lb) <W ≤18.2 kg (40 lb), Height 870 mm (34.3

inches) <H ≤1100 mm (43.3 inches). HIII–3YO (subpart P).

Weight 18.2 kg (40 lb) <W ≤22.7 kg (50 lb), Height 1100 mm (43.3

inches) <H ≤1250 mm (49.2 inches). HIII–6YO (subpart N).

Weight 22.7 kg (50 lb) <W ≤29.5 kg (65 lb), Height 1100 mm (43.3

inches) <H ≤1250 mm (49.2 inches). HIII–6YO (subpart N) and weighted HIII–6YO (subpart S).

Weight greater than 29.5 kg (65 lb), Height greater than 1250 mm

(49.2 inches). HIII–10YO (subpart T *).

* HIC is not a pass/fail criterion when testing with the HIII–10YO dummy.

(Note: CRSs with internal harnesses exceeding 29.5 kg (65 lb) with an ATD are not tested with that ATD on the child restraint anchorage sys-

tem of the standard seat assembly.)

g. Consistency With NHTSA’s Use of

ATDs in the Proposed Side Impact Test

NHTSA requests comment on the

merits of adopting the above proposed

dummy selection categories in the

January 28, 2014 proposed side impact

test for CRSs, regarding CRSs for

children weighing up to 18.2 kg (40 lb).

The January 28, 2014 NPRM referred to

the weight categories currently in

FMVSS No. 213 to determine which

ATD NHTSA would use in a side

impact compliance test. That is, NHTSA

proposed to use the CRABI–12MO

dummy to test CRSs designed for

children weighing up to 10 kg (22 lb),

and to use a newly-developed side

impact ATD (called the ‘‘Q3s’’) to test

CRSs for children weighing 10 to 18.2

kg (22–40 lb). To align the side impact

test with this frontal impact test

proposal, NHTSA is considering using

the CRABI–12MO to test CRSs designed

for children weighing up to 13.6 kg (30

lb), and using the Q3s (3YO dummy) to

test CRSs designed for children

weighing 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30–40 lb) in

the side impact test. The Agency’s

reasons for considering this change are

the same ones discussed above in this

NPRM relating to fitting the ATDs in the

CRSs and how representative the ATDs

are of the children who would be using

the CRS. Further, NHTSA believes it

would make sense for CRSs to be tested

with the same ATDs in both the frontal

impact and side impact tests.

X. School Bus CRSs

FMVSS No. 213 permits a type of CRS

that is designed for exclusive use on

school buses. The CRS type is a

‘‘harness,’’ which the standard defines

in S4 as ‘‘a combination pelvic and

upper torso child restraint system that

consists primarily of flexible material,

such as straps, webbing or similar

material, and that does not include a

rigid seating structure for the child.’’

NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 213 to

accommodate harnesses manufactured

for use on school bus seats because

many school districts and school bus

operators needed a product with a seat

back mount to transport preschoolers,

children who need help sitting upright,

and children who need to be physically

restrained because of physical or

behavioral needs.

119

The seat back

mount of the specialized harnesses

manufactured for use on school bus

seats does not use a seat belt to attach

to the seat and thus can be used on large

school buses without seat belts, which

most large school buses do not have.

NHTSA has become aware of a CRS

that is also designed exclusively for

school bus use. The CRS uses a seat

back mount to attach to the school bus

seat without the use of a seat belt.

However, because the CRS is not a

harness, it does not qualify as a school

bus harness under the wording of the

standard and is not permitted under

FMVSS No. 213.

120

NHTSA proposes amendments to

FMVSS No. 213 to make the standard

more design-neutral regarding CRSs that

are designed for exclusive use on school

bus seats. To permit restraints for

exclusive school bus use other than

harnesses, the proposed amendments

would include a new design-neutral

definition for this type of CRS.

NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS

No. 213 so that CRSs manufactured for

exclusive use on school bus seats could

be certified using a seat back mount or

a seat back and seat pan mount

attachment method. Specifically,

NHTSA proposes to add a definition of

‘‘school bus child restraint system’’ in

S4 of FMVSS No. 213 that would define

the term as a child restraint system

(including harnesses), sold for exclusive

use on school bus seats, that has a label

conforming with S5.3.1(b) of FMVSS

No. 213.

NHTSA proposes amending S5.3.1(b)

to require school bus CRSs to bear a

permanent warning label, depicted in

Figure 12 of FMVSS No. 213, that is

permanently affixed to the part of the

harness or strap that attaches the CRS to

a vehicle seat back. This label must be

plainly visible when installed and easily

readable, the message area must be

white with black text and no less than

20 square centimeters, and the

pictogram shall be gray and black with

a red circle and slash on a white

background and no less than 20 mm in

diameter.

NHTSA proposes to amend table

S5.1.3.1(a) which specifies the head and

knee excursion requirements. School

bus CRSs would be subject to the

current excursion limit requirements for

harnesses manufactured for use on

school bus seats when installed using a

seat back mount or seat back and seat

pan mounts. Also, NHTSA proposes to

amend the table to S5.3.2 to indicate

that school bus CRSs must meet the

relevant requirements of the standard

when attached with a seat back mount

or seat back and seat pan mounts.

This NPRM also proposes to amend

S5.6.1.11 of FMVSS No. 213 to require

that printed instructions accompanying

these school bus CRSs include the

warning statement: ‘‘WARNING! This

restraint must only be used on school

bus seats. Entire seat directly behind

must be unoccupied or have restrained

occupants.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69437

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

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.

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.

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/.

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

(a) Inflatable booster seats: Transport

Canada conducted 25–30 mph frontal

impact crash tests of different vehicle

models, with the HIII–6YO and HIII–

10YO dummies restrained in inflatable

boosters in rear seats. In the tests, the

dummies experienced significant

submarining due to excessive

compression of the inflatable booster

during the crash event. Booster seats

sold in Canada are required to compress

by not more than 25 mm when

subjected to a 2,250 N quasi-static

compression force. Inflatable booster

seats cannot meet the requirements of

this quasi-static compression test and so

inflatable boosters are not sold in

Canada. Comments are requested on the

findings of the research crash tests

conducted in Canada, on the booster

seat compression test requirements in

Canada, and on the safety need to have

a compression test in FMVSS No. 213.

(b) Shield-only-CRSs: Shield-only-

CRSs only have a shield to restrain a

young child’s upper torso, lower torso,

and crotch. While such CRSs are

currently not available in the U.S., there

are a wide variety of shield-only-CRSs

in Europe intended for children

weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). Child

dummies (representing children aged

18-months old and 3-years-old)

restrained in shield-only-CRSs in

simulated vehicle rollover tests, 64 km/

h (40 mph) offset frontal impact vehicle

crash tests, and in 64 km/h (40 mph)

Allgemeiner Deutsher Automobil-Club

(ADAC) type frontal impact sled tests

were completely or partially ejected

from the CRSs. These test results raise

concern about the ability of a shield-

only-CRS to retain small children in the

CRS in certain crashes or in a rollover.

NHTSA seeks comment on the findings

of these research tests. Should FMVSS

No. 213 require shield-only-CRSs to

have additional shoulder belts and a

crotch strap, similar to the requirements

for child restraints that have belts

designed to restrain the child (S5.4.3.3)?

2. NHTSA requests information on a

matter showing up in the field

concerning children under 1YO

outgrowing infant carriers by height

much earlier than by weight. Research

studies conducted at UMTRI

123

show

that some infant carriers marketed as

suitable for children up to 13.6 kg (30

lb), which is greater than the weight of

a 95th percentile 1 YO and an average

1.5 YO, cannot ‘‘fit’’ the height of a 95th

percentile 1 YO or an average 1.5 YO.

124

NHTSA believes that infant carriers’

height and weight recommendations

should better match the children for

whom the CRS is recommended.

NHTSA seeks comment on UMTRI’s

research findings regarding how current

infant carriers fit children that they are

designed for. Should infant carriers’

height and weight recommendations

better match up to better accommodate

the children for whom the CRS is

recommended?

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.

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).’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69438

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

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).

128

S5.2.2.2 states that each forward-facing child

restraint system shall have no fixed or movable

surface: (a) directly forward of the dummy and

intersected by a horizontal line, parallel to the seat

orientation reference line (term defined in S4 of

FMVSS No. 213), in the case of the add-on child

restraint system, or parallel to a vertical plane

through the longitudinal center line of the vehicle

seat, in the case of a built-in child restraint system,

and (b) passing through any portion of the dummy,

except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when

the system is tested in accordance with S6.1.2(a)(2),

so that the child restraint system shall conform to

the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.

129

S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) and (ii) also state that Test

Configuration II applies to ‘‘backless child restraint

system[s] with a top anchorage strap’’ and to a

‘‘built-in booster seat with a top anchorage strap.’’

NHTSA is proposing to remove references in

FMVSS No. 213 to those CRSs because such

restraints are no longer or have never been

produced.

130

See FMVSS No. 213 S10.2.1(b)(2) and

S10.2.2(c)(2).

131

The CRSs must also meet the requirements of

FMVSS No. 213 when tested to Test Configuration

I’s 48 km/h (30 mph) tests. The CRSs’ internal belts

are attached in Test Configuration I but the top

tether cannot be attached to meet FMVSS No. 213’s

head excursion limit of 813 mm (32 inches) and the

other dynamic performance requirements in S5.1 of

the standard.

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).

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.

b. Section 5.1.2.2

The Agency is removing and reserving

S5.1.2.2 because it applies to CRSs

manufactured before August 1, 2005 and

so is no longer applicable.

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

Configuration II

The Agency is correcting the table to

S5.1.3.1(a), which specifies performance

criteria and test conditions for FMVSS

No. 213’s occupant excursion

requirements for add-on forward-facing

CRSs. When NHTSA created the table

the agency inadvertently did not

include a reference to Test

Configuration II of FMVSS No. 213.

127

NHTSA seeks to correct this oversight.

Test Configuration II is a 32 km/h (20

mph) ‘‘misuse’’ test that applies to CRSs

that are ‘‘equipped with a fixed or

movable surface described in

S5.2.2.2.’’

128

(S6.1.2(a)(2).)

129

In Test

Configuration II, NHTSA tests those

types of CRSs without attaching ‘‘any of

the child restraint belts unless they are

an integral part of the fixed or movable

surface.’’

130

In addition, the child

restraint is untethered (S6.1.2(a)(2)(i)).

The tested child restraint must meet all

the dynamic performance requirements

of the standard, not just excursion

requirements, when tested in this

manner.

131

Test Configuration II is

intended to address the possibility that

the restraint’s internal belt system will

be misused or not used at all by the

caregiver. If this happens, Test

Configuration II ensures that the

restraint will offer some minimal

protection even when the CRS is not

properly used.

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

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69439

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

134

Details of the benefits analysis are provided in

the Appendix to this NPRM.

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 × 3 × 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69440

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69441

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

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.

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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69442

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

138

Prescribed in FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint

systems.’’ As discussed in this preamble, this

NPRM proposes to relieve some of those

restrictions.

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.

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 × 5 designs/year × 29 CRS

manufacturers = 7,250 hours annually).

Estimated Additional Annual Burden:

7,250 hours.

Comments are invited on: Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department’s estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques of

other forms of information technology.

You may submit comments (identified

by the DOT Docket ID Number above)

by any of the following methods:

•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

online instructions for submitting

comments.

•Mail: Docket Management Facility:

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12–140,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

•Hand Delivery or Courier: West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

•Fax: 202–493–2251.

Regardless of how you submit your

comments, you should mention the

docket number of this document. You

may call the Docket at (202) 366–9826.

Please identify the proposed collection

of information for which a comment is

provided, by referencing its OMB

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69443

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

clearance number. It is requested, but

not required, that two copies of the

comment be provided. Note that all

comments received will be posted

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided. Anyone

is able to search the electronic form of

all comments received into any of our

dockets by the name of the individual

submitting the comment (or signing the

comment, if submitted on behalf of an

association, business, labor union, etc.).

You may review DOT’s complete

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal

Register published on April 11, 2000

(65 FR 19477–78).

Regulation Identifier Number

The Department of Transportation

assigns a regulation identifier number

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in

the Unified Agenda of Federal

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

The Regulatory Information Service

Center publishes the Unified Agenda in

April and October of each year. You

may use the RIN contained in the

heading at the beginning of this

document to find this action in the

Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write all rules in plain

language.

Application of the principles of plain

language includes consideration of the

following questions:

•Have we organized the material to

suit the public’s needs?

•Are the requirements in the rule

clearly stated?

•Does the rule contain technical

language or jargon that isn’t clear?

•Would a different format (grouping

and order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing) make the rule easier to

understand?

•Would more (but shorter) sections

be better?

•Could we improve clarity by adding

tables, lists, or diagrams?

•What else could we do to make the

rule easier to understand?

NHTSA has considered these

questions and attempted to use plain

language in writing this proposed rule.

Please inform the agency if you can

suggest how NHTSA can improve its

use of plain language.

Incorporation by Reference

In updating the standard seat

assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213

frontal test, NHTSA would incorporate

by reference a drawing package titled,

‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly;

FMVSS No. 213, No. NHTSA–213–

2019,’’ dated May 2019, into FMVSS

No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213). The drawing

package consists of detailed drawings of

and other materials related to the

proposed standard seat assembly.

Interested persons could use the

drawing package to manufacture the

standard seat assembly for their own use

if they wished to do so.

NHTSA has placed a copy of the

drawing package in the docket for this

NPRM. Interested parties can download

a copy of the drawing package or view

the materials on line by accessing

www.Regulations.gov. We also will

place a copy of the drawing package in

the docket of the final rule that

incorporates the new standard seat

assembly into FMVSS No. 213.

This NPRM also proposes to change

an incorporation by reference of SAE

Recommended Practice J211,

‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests,’’

revised 1980, to a 1995 version of J211

(J211/1). SAE J211/1, Revised March

1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact

Test—Part 1—Electronic

Instrumentation,’’ provides guidelines

and recommendations for techniques of

measurement with electronic

instrumentation used in impact tests.

These include a series of performance

recommendations for data channels,

guidelines for selecting a frequency

response class for electronic

instrumentation, and guidelines on sign

convention and digital data processing.

The Director of the Federal Register has

already approved the incorporation by

reference of SAE Recommended

Practice J211/1 (1995) into 49 CFR part

571 (see 49 CFR 571.5(l)(4)). Interested

parties can obtain a copy of the SAE

Recommended Practice J211/1 (March

1995) ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact

Test—Part 1—Electronic

Instrumentation,’’ from SAE

International, 400 Commonwealth

Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.

Telephone: (724) 776–4841, website:

www.sae.org.

XV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit

comments?

To ensure that your comments are

correctly filed in the Docket, please

include the Docket Number in your

comments.

Your comments must be written and

in English. Your comments must not be

more than 15 pages long. NHTSA

established this limit to encourage you

to write your primary comments in a

concise fashion. However, you may

attach necessary additional documents

to your comments, and there is no limit

on the length of the attachments.

If you are submitting comments

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file,

NHTSA asks that the documents be

submitted using the Optical Character

Recognition (OCR) process, thus

allowing NHTSA to search and copy

certain portions of your submissions.

Please note that pursuant to the Data

Quality Act, in order for substantive

data to be relied on and used by

NHTSA, it must meet the information

quality standards set forth in the OMB

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.

Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to

consult the guidelines in preparing your

comments. DOT’s guidelines may be

accessed at https://

www.transportation.gov/regulations/

dot-information-dissemination-quality-

guidelines.

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

When submitting comments, please

remember to:

Identify the rulemaking by docket

number and other identifying

information (subject heading, Federal

Register date and page number).

Explain why you agree or disagree,

suggest alternatives, and substitute

language for your requested changes.

Describe any assumptions you make

and provide any technical information

and/or data that you used.

If you estimate potential costs or

burdens, explain how you arrived at

your estimate in sufficient detail to

allow for it to be reproduced.

Provide specific examples to illustrate

your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

Explain your views as clearly as

possible, avoiding the use of profanity

or personal threats.

To ensure that your comments are

considered by the agency, make sure to

submit them by the comment period

deadline identified in the

DATES

section

above.

For additional guidance on

submitting effective comments, see

https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_

For_Submitting_Effective_

Comments.pdf.

How can I be sure my comments were

received?

If you wish Docket Management to

notify you upon its receipt of your

comments, enclose a self-addressed,

stamped postcard in the envelope

containing your comments. Upon

receiving your comments, Docket

Management will return the postcard by

mail.

How do I submit confidential business

information?

If you wish to submit any information

under a claim of confidentiality, you

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69444

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

should submit three copies of your

complete submission, including the

information you claim to be confidential

business information, to the Chief

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given

above under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

. In addition, you should

submit a copy from which you have

deleted the claimed confidential

business information to the docket.

When you send a comment containing

information claimed to be confidential

business information, you should

include a cover letter setting forth the

information specified in our

confidential business information

regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency consider late

comments?

NHTSA will consider all comments

that the docket receives before the close

of business on the comment closing date

indicated above under

DATES

. To the

extent possible, NHTSA will also

consider comments that the docket

receives after that date. If the docket

receives a comment too late for the

agency to consider it in developing a

final rule, NHTSA will consider that

comment as an informal suggestion for

future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted

by other people?

You may read the comments received

by the docket at the address given above

under

ADDRESSES

. You may also see the

comments on the internet (http://

regulations.gov).

Please note that even after the

comment closing date, NHTSA will

continue to file relevant information in

the docket as it becomes available.

Further, some people may submit late

comments. Accordingly, the agency

recommends that you periodically

check the docket for new material.

Anyone is able to search the

electronic form of all comments

received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the

comment (or signing the comment, if

submitted on behalf of an association,

business, labor union, etc.). You may

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, and Tires; Incorporation by

Reference.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part

571 as set forth below.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

■1. The authority citation for Part 571

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.95.

■2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding

and reserving paragraphs (k)(5) through

(8), adding paragraph (k)(9), and

revising paragraph (l)(4), to read as

follows:

§ 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(5) [Reserved.]

(6) [Reserved.]

(7) [Reserved.]

(8) [Reserved.]

(9) Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA

Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No.

213, No. NHTSA–213–2019,’’

(consisting of drawings and a bill of

materials), May 2019, into § 571.213.

(l) * * *

(4) SAE Recommended Practice J211/

1, revised March 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation

for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic

Instrumentation’’ into §§ 571.202a;

571.208; 571.213; 571.213a 571.218;

571.403.

* * * * *

■3. Section 571.213 is amended by—

■Adding, in alphabetical order, a

definition of ‘‘school bus child restraint

system’’ to S4;

■Removing and reserving S5.1.2.2;

■Revising S5.1.3.1(a);

■Revising S5.3.1(b);

■Revising S5.3.2;

■Revising the introductory text of

S5.5.2;

■Revising S5.5.2(f), S5.5.2(g)(1)(i),

removing and reserving S5.5.2(k)(2);

■Removing and reserving S5.5.2(l)(2),

revising S5.5.2(l)(3)(i);

■Revising S5.5.2(m), S5.5.5(f),

S5.5.5(k), S5.6.1.7, S5.6.1.11, S5.6.2.2,

S5.8.1, S5.8.2, and S5.9(a);

■Adding S6.1.1(a)(1)(i) and revising

S6.1.1(a)(1)(ii);

■Revising S6.1.1(a)(2)(i)(B) and

S6.1.1(a)(2)(ii)(G);

■Removing and reserving S6.1.1(c);

■Revising S6.1.2(a), S6.1.2(a)(1) and

S6.1.2(a)(2) and S6.2(d)(1)(ii);

■Adding S7.1.1;

■Revising the introductory paragraph

to S7.1.2;

■Revising S7.1.3, and,

■Adding S10.2.2(e), and Figures 1D,

1D’, 1E, 1E’, 9c and 9d.

The revised and added text and

figures read as follows:

§ 571.213 Child restraint systems.

* * * * *

S4. Definitions * * *

School bus child restraint system

means a child restraint system

(including a harness) manufactured and

sold only for use on school bus seats,

that has a label conforming with

S5.3.1(b).

* * * * *

S5.1.2.2 [Reserved]

* * * * *

S5.1.3.1 * * *

(a)(1) For each add-on child restraint

system manufactured before [date 3

years after date of publication of final

rule]—

(i) No portion of the test dummy’s

head shall pass through a vertical

transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813

mm (as specified in table 2 to this

S5.1.3.1(a)) forward of point Z on the

Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA–

213–2003, measured along the center

SORL (as illustrated in figure 1B of this

standard); and

(ii) Neither knee pivot point shall pass

through a vertical transverse plane that

is 915 mm forward of point Z on the

Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA–

213–2003, measured along the center

SORL. * * *

(2) For each add-on child restraint

system manufactured on or after [date 3

years after date of publication of final

rule]—

(i) No portion of the test dummy’s

head shall pass through a vertical

transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813

mm (as specified in table 3 to this

S5.1.3.1(a)) forward of point Z on the

Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA–

213–2019, measured along the center

SORL (as illustrated in figure 1D of this

standard); and

(ii) Neither knee pivot point shall pass

through a vertical transverse plane that

is 915 mm forward of point Z on the

Standard Seat Assembly No. NHTSA–

213–2019, measured along the center

SORL.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69445

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

T

ABLE

2

TO

S5.1.3.1(a)—A

DD

-O

N

F

ORWARD

-F

ACING

C

HILD

R

ESTRAINTS

M

ANUFACTURED

B

EFORE

[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

When this type of child

restraint Is tested in

accordance with— These excursion limits apply

Explanatory note: in the test specified in 2nd column, the

child restraint is attached to the test seat assembly in

the manner described below, subject to certain

conditions

Harnesses, backless booster

seats and restraints de-

signed for use by physically

handicapped children.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) ... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap belt; in addition, if a tether is provided,

it is attached.

School bus child restraint sys-

tems. S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) ... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with seat back mount, or seat back and seat

pan mounts.

Belt-positioning seats .............. S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii) ....... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is at-

tached.

Child restraints other than har-

nesses, backless booster

seats, restraints designed

for use by physically handi-

capped children, school bus

child restraint systems, and

belt-positioning seats.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(B) ...

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) ...

..........................

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) ...

..........................

Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm

............................................

Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm

............................................

Attached with lap belt; no tether is attached.

Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor-

age system; no tether is attached.

Attached with lap belt; in addition, if a tether is provided,

it is attached.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C) ... Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor-

age system; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is at-

tached.

Child restraints equipped with

a fixed or movable surface

described in S5.2.2.2 that

has belts that are not an in-

tegral part of that fixed or

movable surface.

S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) ........ Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap belt or lower anchorages of child re-

straint anchorage system; no tether is attached.

T

ABLE

3

TO

S5.1.3.1(a)—A

DD

-O

N

F

ORWARD

-F

ACING

C

HILD

R

ESTRAINTS

M

ANUFACTURED

O

NOR

A

FTER

[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

When this type of child

restraint Is tested in

accordance with— These excursion limits apply

Explanatory note: in the test specified in 2nd column, the

child restraint is attached to the test seat assembly in

the manner described below, subject to certain

conditions

Harnesses and restraints de-

signed for use by physically

handicapped children.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm. Attached with lap and shoulder belt; in addition, if a teth-

er is provided, it is attached.

School bus child restraint sys-

tems. S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with seat back mount, or seat back and seat

pan mounts.

Booster seats .......................... S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(B) Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is at-

tached.

Child restraints other than har-

nesses, restraints designed

for use by physically handi-

capped children, school bus

child restraint systems, and

booster seats.

S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(B)

S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(D)

..........................

S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A)

..........................

S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(C)

..........................

Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm

............................................

Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm

............................................

Head 720 mm; Knee 915 mm

............................................

Attached with lap and shoulder belt; no tether is at-

tached.

Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor-

age system; no tether is attached.

Attached with lap and shoulder belt; in addition, if a teth-

er is provided, it is attached.

Attached to lower anchorages of child restraint anchor-

age system; in addition, if a tether is provided, it is at-

tached.

Child restraints equipped with

a fixed or movable surface

described in S5.2.2.2 that

has belts that are not an in-

tegral part of that fixed or

movable surface.

S6.1.2(a)(2)(i) ........ Head 813 mm; Knee 915 mm Attached with lap and shoulder belt or lower anchorages

of child restraint anchorage system; no tether is at-

tached.

* * * * *

S5.3.1 * * *

(b) School bus child restraint systems

must have a label, that conforms in

content to Figure 12 and to the

requirements of S5.3.1(b)(1) through

S5.3.1(b)(3) of this standard, and that is

permanently affixed to the part of the

school bus child restraint system that

attaches the system to a vehicle seat

back.

(1) The label must be plainly visible

when installed and easily readable.

(2) The message area must be white

with black text. The message area must

be no less than 20 square centimeters.

(3) The pictogram shall be gray and

black with a red circle and slash on a

white background. The pictogram shall

be no less than 20 mm in diameter.

S5.3.2 Each add-on child restraint

system manufactured before [ date 3

years after date of publication of final

rule] and each add-on child restraint

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69446

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

system manufactured on or after [date 3

years after date of publication of final

rule] shall be capable of meeting the

requirements of this standard when

installed solely by each of the means

indicated in the following tables 5 and

6, respectively, for the particular type of

child restraint system:

T

ABLE

5

TO

S5.3.2 M

EANS OF INSTALLATION FOR CHILD RESTRAINTS MANUFACTURED BEFORE

[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

Type of add-on child restraint system Type 1

seat belt

assembly

Type 1 seat belt

assembly plus a

tether anchorage, if

needed

Child restraint

anchorage system Type 2 seat

belt assembly

Seat back mount,

or seat back and

seat pan mounts

School bus child restraint systems .......................... ................ ................................ .............................. ........................ X

Other harnesses ...................................................... ................ X .............................. ........................ ..............................

Car beds .................................................................. X ................................ .............................. ........................ ..............................

Rear-facing restraints ............................................... X ................................ X ........................ ..............................

Belt-positioning seats ............................................... ................ ................................ .............................. X ..............................

All other child restraints ........................................... X X X ........................ ..............................

T

ABLE

6

TO

S5.3.2 M

EANS OF INSTALLATION FOR CHILD RESTRAINTS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER

[Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule]

Type of add-on child restraint system

Type 2 seat belt

assembly plus a

tether anchorage, if

needed

Child restraint

anchorage system Type 2 seat

belt assembly

Seat back mount,

or seat back and

seat pan mounts

School bus child restraint systems .............................................. ................................ .............................. ........................ X

Other harnesses .......................................................................... X .............................. ........................ ..............................

Car beds ...................................................................................... ................................ .............................. X ..............................

Rear-facing restraints .................................................................. ................................ X X ..............................

Booster seats ............................................................................... ................................ .............................. X ..............................

All other child restraints ............................................................... X X X ..............................

* * * * *

S5.5.2 The information specified in

paragraphs (a) through (e) and

paragraphs (g) through (m) of this

section shall be stated in the English

language and in letters and numbers

that are not smaller than 10 point type.

Unless otherwise specified, the

information shall be labeled on a white

background with black text. Unless

written in all capitals, the information

shall be stated in sentence

capitalization.

* * * * *

(f) Statements or a combination of

statements and pictograms specifying

the manufacturer’s recommendations for

the mass and height ranges of children

who can safely occupy the system in

each applicable mode (rear-facing,

forward-facing, booster), except

manufacturers shall not recommend

forward-facing child restraint systems

with internal harnesses for children of

masses less than 12 kg (26.5 lb), and

shall not recommend booster seats for

children of masses less than 18.4 kg (40

lb). For seats that can only be used as

belt-positioning seats, manufacturers

must include the maximum and

minimum recommended height, but

may delete the reference to maximum

weight.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) As appropriate, the statements

required by the following sections will

be bulleted and placed after the

statement required by 5.5.2(g)(1) in the

following order: 5.5.2(k)(1), 5.5.2(h),

5.5.2(j), and 5.5.2(i).

* * * * *

(k)(1) * * *

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(2) [Reserved]

(3) * * *

(i) If the child restraint is designed to

meet the requirements of this standard

when installed by the child restraint

anchorage system according to S5.3.2,

and if the sum of the weight of the child

restraint and the maximum child weight

recommended for the child restraint

when used with the restraint’s internal

harness or components is greater than

65 lb when used forward-facing or rear-

facing, include the following statement

on this installation diagram: ‘‘Do not

install by this method for a child

weighing more than *.’’ At the

manufacturer’s option, ‘‘*’’ is the child

weight limit in English units in

accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A), (B) or

(C). The corresponding child weight

limit in metric units may also be

included in the statement at the

manufacturer’s option.

* * * * *

(m) Statements informing the owner

of the importance of registering the

child restraint for recall purposes and

instructing the owner how to register

the child restraint at least by mail and

by telephone, providing a U.S.

telephone number. The following

statement must also be provided: ‘‘For

recall information, call the U.S.

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at

1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–

9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’

* * * * *

S5.5.5 * * *

(f) The same statement(s) provided

under S5.5.2(f).

* * * * *

(k) Statements informing the owner of

the importance of registering the child

restraint for recall purposes and

instructing the owner how to register

the child restraint at least by mail and

by telephone, providing a U.S.

telephone number. The following

statement must also be provided: ‘‘For

recall information, call the U.S.

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at

1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–

9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’

* * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69447

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

S5.6.1.7 Statements informing the

owner of the importance of registering

the child restraint for recall purposes

and instructing the owner how to

register the child restraint at least by

mail and by telephone, providing a U.S.

telephone number. The following

statement must also be provided: ‘‘For

recall information, call the U.S.

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at

1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–

9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’

* * * * *

S5.6.1.11 For school bus child

restraint systems, the instructions must

include the following statement:

‘‘WARNING! This restraint must only

be used on school bus seats. Entire seat

directly behind must be unoccupied or

have restrained occupants.’’ (The

instruction’s reference to a ‘‘restrained

occupant’’ refers to an occupant

restrained by any user-appropriate

vehicle restraint or child restraint

system (e.g., lap belt, lap and shoulder

belt, booster seat or other child restraint

system.)

* * * * *

S5.6.2.2 The instructions for each

built-in child restraint system other than

a factory-installed restraint shall include

statements informing the owner of the

importance of registering the child

restraint for recall purposes and

instructing the owner how to register

the child restraint at least by mail and

by telephone, providing a U.S.

telephone number. The following

statement must also be provided: ‘‘For

recall information, call the U.S.

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at

1–888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–

9153), or go to www.NHTSA.gov.’’

* * * * *

S5.8.1 Attached registration form.

(a) Each child restraint system, except

a factory-installed built-in restraint

system, shall have a registration form

attached to any surface of the restraint

that contacts the dummy when the

dummy is positioned in the system in

accordance with S6.1.2 of Standard 213.

The form shall not have advertising or

any information other than that related

to registering the child restraint system.

(b) Each attached form shall provide

a mail-in postcard that conforms in size,

and in basic content and format to the

forms depicted in Figures 9c and 9d of

this section.

(1) The mail-in postcard shall:

(i) Have a thickness of at least 0.007

inches and not more than 0.0095 inches;

(ii) Be pre-printed with the

information identifying the child

restraint for recall purposes, such as the

model name or number and date of

manufacture (month, year) of the child

restraint system to which the form is

attached;

(iii) Contain space for the owner to

record his or her name, mailing address,

email address, and other pertinent

information; and

(iv) Be addressed to the manufacturer,

and be postage paid.

(c) The registration form attached to

the child restraint shall also provide

information:

(1) Informing the owner of the

importance of registering the child

restraint; and,

(2) Instructing the owner how to

register the CRS.

(3) Manufacturers must provide

statements informing the purchaser that

the registration card is pre-addressed

and that postage has been paid.

(4) Manufacturers may provide

instructions to register the child

restraint electronically. If an electronic

registration form is used, it must meet

the requirements of S5.8.2 of this

section.

(5) Manufacturers must provide

statements to the owner explaining that

the registration card is not a warranty

card, and that the information collected

from the owner will not be used for

marketing purposes.

S5.8.2 Electronic registration form.

(a) Each electronic registration form

must meet the requirements of this

S5.8.2. Each form shall:

(1) Contain statements at the top of

the form:

(i) Informing the owner of the

importance of registering the CRS; and,

(ii) Instructing the owner how to

register the CRS.

(2) Provide as required registration

fields, space for the purchaser to record

the model name or number and date of

manufacture (month, year) of the child

restraint system, and space for the

purchaser to record his or her name and

mailing address. At the manufacturer’s

option, a space is provided for the

purchaser to record his or her email

address.

(b) No advertising information shall

appear on the electronic registration

form.

(c) The electronic registration form

may provide information identifying the

manufacturer or a link to the

manufacturer’s home page, a field to

confirm submission, and a prompt to

indicate any incomplete or invalid

fields prior to submission.

(d) If a manufacturer printed the

electronic address (in form of a website

or code) on the attached registration

form provided pursuant to S5.8.1, the

electronic registration form shall be

accessed directly by the electronic

address. Accessing the electronic

address (in form of a website or code)

that contains the electronic registration

form shall not cause additional screens

or electronic banners to appear.

S5.9 * * *

(a)(1) Each add-on child restraint

system manufactured before [ date 3

years after publication date of final

rule], other than a car bed, harness,

school bus child restraint system, and

belt-positioning seat, shall have

components permanently attached that

enable the restraint to be securely

fastened to the lower anchorages of the

child restraint anchorage system

specified in Standard No. 225

(§ 571.225) and depicted in Drawing

Package SAS–100–1000, Standard Seat

Belt Assembly with Addendum A or in

Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard

Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No.

NHTSA–213–2003’’ (both incorporated

by reference, see § 571.5). The

connectors must be attached to the add-

on child restraint by use of a tool, such

as a screwdriver. In the case of rear-

facing child restraints with detachable

bases, only the base is required to have

the components. [NHTSA notes:

inclusion of the following text was

proposed by a January 23, 2015 NPRM,

80 FR 3744, 3775. ‘‘The connectors

designed to attach the add-on child

restraint to the lower anchorages of the

child restraint anchorage system shall

be permanently marked with the

pictogram in Figure 15. The pictogram

is not less than 9 mm in diameter.’’]

(2) Each add-on child restraint system

manufactured on or after [ date 3 years

after publication date of final rule],

other than a car bed, harness, school bus

child restraint system and belt-

positioning seat, shall have components

permanently attached that enable the

restraint to be securely fastened to the

lower anchorages of the child restraint

anchorage system specified in Standard

No. 225 (§ 571.225) and depicted in

Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard

Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No.

NHTSA–213–2019’’ (incorporated by

reference, see § 571.5). The connectors

must be attached to the add-on child

restraint by use of a tool, such as a

screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing

child restraints with detachable bases,

only the base is required to have the

components. [NHTSA notes: inclusion

of the following text would be consistent

with a January 23, 2015 NPRM, 80 FR

at 3775. ‘‘The connectors designed to

attach the add-on child restraint to the

lower anchorages of the child restraint

anchorage system shall be permanently

marked with the pictogram in Figure 15.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69448

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

The pictogram is not less than 9 mm in

diameter.’’]

* * * * *

S6.1.1 * * *

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) The test device for add-on restraint

systems manufactured before date 3

years after publication date of final rule]

is a standard seat assembly consisting of

a simulated vehicle bench seat, with

three seating positions, which is

depicted in Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA

Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No.

213, No. NHTSA–213–2003,’’

(consisting of drawings and a bill of

materials) dated June 3, 2003

(incorporated by reference; see § 571.5).

The assembly is mounted on a dynamic

test platform so that the center SORL of

the seat is parallel to the direction of the

test platform travel and so that

movement between the base of the

assembly and the platform is prevented.

As illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B of

this standard, attached to the seat belt

anchorage points provided on the

standard seat assembly are Type 1 seat

belt assemblies in the case of add-on

child restraint systems other than belt-

positioning seats, or Type 2 seat belt

assemblies in the case of belt-

positioning seats. These seat belt

assemblies meet the requirements of

Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209) and have

webbing with a width of not more than

2 inches, and are attached to the

anchorage points without the use of

retractors or reels of any kind. As

illustrated in Figures 1A’ and 1B’ of this

standard, attached to the standard seat

assembly is a child restraint anchorage

system conforming to the specifications

of Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225).

(ii) The test device for add-on

restraint systems manufactured on or

after [ date 3 years after publication date

of final rule] is a standard seat assembly

consisting of a simulated vehicle rear

seat which is depicted in Drawing

Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat

Assembly; FMVSS No. 213, No.

NHTSA–213–2019,’’ (consisting of

drawings and a bill of materials) dated

May 2019 (incorporated by reference;

see § 571.5). The assembly is mounted

on a dynamic test platform so that the

center SORL of the seat is parallel to the

direction of the test platform travel and

so that movement between the base of

the assembly and the platform is

prevented. As illustrated in Figures 1D

and 1E of this standard, attached to the

seat belt anchorage points provided on

the standard seat assembly is a Type 2

seat belt assembly. The seat belt

assembly meets the requirements of

Standard No. 209 (§ 571.209) and has

webbing with a width of not more than

2 inches, and are attached to the

anchorage points without the use of

retractors or reels of any kind. As

illustrated in Figures 1D’ and 1E’ of this

standard, attached to the standard seat

assembly is a child restraint anchorage

system conforming to the specifications

of Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225).

(2) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) The platform is instrumented with

an accelerometer and data processing

system having a frequency response of

60 Hz channel frequency class as

specified in SAE Recommended

Practice J211/1 (1995), ‘‘Instrumentation

for Impact Tests,’’ (incorporated by

reference, see § 571.5). The

accelerometer sensitive axis is parallel

to the direction of test platform travel.

(ii) * * *

(G) All instrumentation and data

reduction is in conformance with SAE

Recommended Practice J211/1 (1995),

‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests,’’

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5).

* * * * *

S6.1.1(c) [Reserved]

S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.

(a) Activate the built-in child restraint

or attach the add-on child restraint to

the seat assembly in any of the

following manners, at the agency’s

option.

(1) Test configuration I.

(i) Child restraints other than belt-

positioning seats, manufactured before

[date 3 years from date of publication of

final rule]. Attach the child restraint in

any of the following manners specified

in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D), unless

otherwise specified in this standard.

(A) Install the child restraint system at

the center seating position of the

standard seat assembly, in accordance

with the manufacturer’s instructions

provided with the system pursuant to

S5.6.1, except that the standard lap belt

is used and, if provided, a tether strap

may be used. Attach school bus child

restraint systems in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions provided

with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, i.e.,

the seat back or seat back and seat pan

mounts are used.

(B) Except for a harness, a school bus

child restraint system, a backless child

restraint system with a tether strap, and

a restraint designed for use by

physically handicapped children, install

the child restraint system at the center

seating position of the standard seat

assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), except

that no tether strap (or any other

supplemental device) is used.

(C) Install the child restraint system

using the child restraint anchorage

system at the center seating position of

the standard seat assembly in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions provided with the system

pursuant to S5.6.1. The tether strap, if

one is provided, is attached to the tether

anchorage.

(D) Install the child restraint system

using only the lower anchorages of the

child restraint anchorage system as in

S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). No tether strap (or any

other supplemental device) is used.

(ii) Belt-positioning seats

manufactured before [ date 3 years from

date of publication of final rule]. A belt-

positioning seat is attached to either

outboard seating position of the

standard seat assembly in accordance

with the manufacturer’s instructions

provided with the system pursuant to

S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle

lap and shoulder belt and no tether (or

any other supplemental device). Place

the belt-positioning seat on the standard

seat assembly such that the center plane

of the belt-positioning seat is parallel

and aligned to the center plane of the

outboard seating positions on the

standard seat assembly and the base of

the belt-positioning seat is flat on the

standard seat assembly cushion. Move

the belt-positioning seat rearward on the

standard seat assembly until some part

of the belt-positioning seat touches the

standard seat assembly back. Keep the

belt-positioning seat and the seating

position center plane aligned as much

as possible. Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of

force to the front of the belt-positioning

seat rearward into the standard seat

assembly and release.

(iii) In the case of each built-in child

restraint system, activate the restraint in

the specific vehicle shell or the specific

vehicle, in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions provided in

accordance with S5.6.2.

(iv) Child restraints other than booster

seats, manufactured on or after [ date 3

years from date of publication of final

rule]. At the agency’s option, attach the

child restraint in any of the following

manners specified in S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A)

through (D), unless otherwise specified

in this standard.

(A) Install the child restraint system

on the standard seat assembly, in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions provided with the system

pursuant to S5.6.1, except that the

standard lap and shoulder belt is used

and, if provided, a tether strap may be

used. Attach the school bus child

restraint system in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions provided

with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, i.e.,

the seat back or seat back and seat pan

mounts are used.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69449

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

(B) Except for a harness, a school bus

child restraint system, and a restraint

designed for use by physically

handicapped children, install the child

restraint system on the standard seat

assembly as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(A),

except that no tether strap (or any other

supplemental device) is used.

(C) Install the child restraint system

using the child restraint anchorage

system on the standard seat assembly in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions provided with the system

pursuant to S5.6.1. The tether strap, if

one is provided, is attached to the tether

anchorage.

(D) Install the child restraint system

using only the lower anchorages of the

child restraint anchorage system as in

S6.1.2(a)(1)(iv)(C). No tether strap (or

any other supplemental device) is used.

(v) Booster seats manufactured on or

after [date 3 years from date of

publication of final rule]. A booster seat

is attached to the standard seat assembly

in accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions provided with the system

pursuant to S5.6.1 using only the

standard lap and shoulder belt and no

tether (or any other supplemental

device). Place the booster seat on the

standard seat assembly such that the

center plane of the booster seat is

parallel and aligned to the center plane

of the standard seat assembly and the

base of the booster seat is flat on the

standard seat assembly cushion. Move

the booster seat rearward on the

standard seat assembly until some part

of the booster seat touches the standard

seat assembly back. Keep the booster

seat and the seating position center

plane aligned as much as possible.

Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the

front of the booster seat rearward into

the standard seat assembly and release.

(2) Test configuration II. (i) In the case

of each add-on child restraint system

manufactured before [ date 3 years from

date of publication of final rule] which

is equipped with a fixed or movable

surface described in S5.2.2.2 that has

belts that are not an integral part of that

fixed or movable surface, install the

add-on child restraint system at the

center seating position of the standard

seat assembly using only the standard

seat lap belt to secure the system to the

standard seat. Do not attach the top

tether. In the case of each add-on child

restraint system manufactured on or

after [ date 3 years from date of

publication of final rule] which is

equipped with a fixed or movable

surface described in S5.2.2.2 that has

belts that are not an integral part of that

fixed or movable surface, install the

add-on child restraint system on the

standard seat assembly using only the

lap and shoulder belt to secure the

system to the standard seat, or at

NHTSA’s option, only the lower

anchorages of the child restraint

anchorage system. Do not attach the top

tether.

(ii) In the case of each built-in child

restraint system which is equipped with

a fixed or movable surface described in

S5.2.2.2 that has belts that are not an

integral part of that fixed or movable

surface, activate the system in the

specific vehicle shell or the specific

vehicle in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions provided in

accordance with S5.6.2.

* * * * *

(d) Belt adjustment.

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(ii) All Type I belt systems used to

attach an add-on child restraint to the

standard seat assembly, and any

provided additional anchorage belt

(tether), are tightened to a tension of not

less than 53.5 N and not more than 67

N, as measured by a load cell used on

the webbing portion of the belt. All belt

systems used to attach a school bus

child restraint system are also tightened

to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and

not more than 67 N, by measurement

means specified in this paragraph.

* * * * *

S7.1.1 Child restraints that are

manufactured on or after date three

years after date of publication of the

final rule], are subject to the following

provisions.

(a) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass of

not greater than 5 kg (11 lb), or by

children in a specified height range that

includes any children whose height is

not greater than 650 mm, is tested with

a 49 CFR part 572 subpart K dummy

(newborn infant dummy).

(b) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass

greater than 5 kg but not greater than 10

kg (11 to 22 lb), or by children in a

specified height range that includes any

children whose height is greater than

650 mm but not greater than 750 mm,

is tested with a 49 CFR part 572 subpart

K dummy (newborn infant dummy), and

a part 572 subpart R dummy (CRABI 12-

month-old infant dummy).

(c) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass

greater than 10 kg but not greater than

13.6 kg (22 to 30 lb), or by children in

a specified height range that includes

any children whose height is greater

than 750 mm but not greater than 870

mm, is tested with a part 572 subpart R

dummy (CRABI 12-month-old infant

dummy).

(d) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass

greater than 13.6 kg but not greater than

18.2 kg (30 to 40 lb), or by children in

a specified height range that includes

any children whose height is greater

than 870 mm but not greater than 1100

mm, is tested with a part 572 subpart P

dummy (Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy).

(e) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass

greater than 18.2 kg (40 lb) but not

greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb), or by

children in a specified height range that

includes any children whose height is

greater than 1100 mm but not greater

than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR

part 572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III

6-year-old dummy).

(f) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass

greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not

greater than 29.5 kg (65 lb) or by

children in a specified height range that

includes any children whose height is

greater than 1100 mm but not greater

than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR

part 572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III

6-year-old dummy) and with a part 572,

subpart S dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old

weighted dummy).

(g) A child restraint that is

recommended by its manufacturer in

accordance with S5.5 for use either by

children in a specified mass range that

includes any children having a mass

greater than 29.5 kg (65 lb) or by

children in a specified height range that

includes any children whose height is

greater than 1250 mm is tested with a

49 CFR part 572, subpart T dummy

(Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy).

S7.1.2 Child restraints that are

manufactured before [ date three years

after date of publication of the final

rule], are subject to the following

provisions and S7.1.3.

* * * * *

S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative

dummies. For child restraint systems

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69450

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

manufactured before [ date 3 years after

date of publication of a final rule], at the

manufacturer’s option (with said option

irrevocably selected prior to, or at the

time of, certification of the restraint),

when this section specifies use of the 49

CFR part 572, subpart N (Hybrid III 6-

year-old dummy) test dummy, the test

dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572,

subpart I (Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy)

may be used in place of the subpart N

test dummy.

* * * * *

S10.2.2 * * *

(e)(1) When using the Hybrid III 3-

year-old (part 572, subpart P) dummy in

a rear-facing child restraint system with

an internal restraint system, remove the

knee stop screw (210–6516 in drawing

210–5000–1,-2; incorporated by

reference, see § 571.5) from the right and

left knee so as to let the knees

hyperextend.

(2) Place the Subpart P dummy in the

forward- or rear-facing child restraint

system being tested so that the back of

the dummy torso contacts the back

support surface of the system. For a

child restraint system equipped with a

fixed or movable surface described in

S5.2.2.2 that is being tested under the

conditions of test configuration II, do

not attach any of the child restraint belts

unless they are an integral part of the

fixed or movable surface. For all other

child restraint systems and for a child

restraint system with a fixed or movable

surface that is being tested under the

conditions of test configuration I, attach

all appropriate child restraint belts and

tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.

Attach all appropriate vehicle belts and

tighten them as specified in S6.1.2.

Position each movable surface in

accordance with the instructions that

the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1

or S5.6.2.

Figures to § 571.213

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.030</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69451

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.031</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69452

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.032</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69453

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.033</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69454

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

EP02NO20.034</GPH>

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69455

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

139

NHTSA’s Car Seat Recommendations: https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/

nhtsacarseatrecommendations.pdf.

140

McMurry, T.L., Arbogast, K.B., Sherwood,

C.P., Vaca, F., Bull, M., Crandall, J.R., Kent, R.W.,

‘‘Rear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints:

an updated assessment,’’ Injury Prevention,

2017;0:1–5.doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2017–042512.

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

Note: The following appendix will not

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix to Preamble

Estimation of Potential Benefits From the

Proposed Increase in the Manufacturer-

Recommended Minimum Child Weight for

Use of Forward-Facing CRSs and Booster

Seats

Under FMVSS No. 213, manufacturers

label their child restraints with information

about the children for whom the CRS is

recommended, based on the children’s height

and weight. Children should be rear-facing

until they are at least 1 year in age, as

physically they are safer riding rear-facing so

that their head and neck are supported by the

CRS back structure in a crash. Currently, the

standard requires forward-facing child

restraints to be recommended for children

weighing a minimum of 9 kg (20 lb). This

NPRM proposes to raise this minimum to 12

kg (26.5 lb), because 12 kg (26.5 lb)

corresponds to the weight of a 95th

percentile one-year-old. In addition, FMVSS

No. 213 currently requires booster seats to be

recommended for children weighing at least

13.6 kg (30 lb). This NPRM proposes to raise

that weight limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb). The

proposed increase in the manufacturer-

recommended minimum child weight for

forward-facing CRSs reduce the premature

graduation from rear-facing CRSs to forward-

facing CRSs, and from forward-facing car

safety seats to booster seats. The proposed

changes would align the standard with

current best practices on child passenger

safety and are anticipated to have a beneficial

effect on child passenger safety. This

appendix provides the data and analysis

methodology to illustrate and estimate that

beneficial effect, in terms of potential lives

saved and injuries prevented.

(1) Increasing Manufacturer-Recommended

Minimum Child Weight for Forward-Facing

CRS Use From 9 kg to 12 kg (20 lb to 26.5

lb)

Increasing the manufacturer-recommended

minimum child weight for use of forward-

facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg (20 lb to 26.5

lb) could potentially reduce premature

graduation of children to forward-facing

CRSs. NHTSA recommends

139

that all

children up to the age of one year should

always ride in rear-facing CRSs and that

children 1 to 3 years of age ride in rear-facing

CRSs as long as possible and until they reach

the upper height or weight limit allowed by

the CRS’s manufacturer. By supporting the

entire posterior torso, neck, head, and pelvis,

a rear-facing CRS distributes crash forces

over the entire body rather than focusing

them only at belt contact points as with a

forward-facing CRS. Therefore,

biomechanical experts, together with the

child passenger safety community,

recommend rear-facing CRS use for infants

and toddlers.

To determine the potential lives saved and

injuries prevented by this proposal, the

Agency reviewed literature and analyzed

available data for: (a) Estimating the

incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs

over forward-facing CRSs in protecting

children in crashes; (b) determining the

number of children killed and injured in

CRSs categorized by age of child; (c) the

percentage of children by age in rear-facing

and forward-facing CRSs; (d) the percentage

of children by age weighing less than 12 kg

(26.5 lb); and, (e) the percentage of caregivers

who would follow manufacturer’s

instructions provided on CRS labels and the

users’ manual regarding use of the CRS.

Incremental Effectiveness of Rear-Facing

CRSs Over Forward-Facing CRSs

McMurry, et al.

140

examined the National

Automotive Sampling System—

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS–CDS)

data files for the years 1988–2015 to compare

the injury risk for children up to the age of

2 years in rear-facing CRSs and forward-

facing CRSs. The data showed an extremely

low injury rate in children up to 2 years of

age in both rear-facing CRSs and forward-

facing CRSs. McMurry noted that children 2–

YO and younger experienced lower rates of

injury when restrained in rear-facing CRSs

than when restrained in forward-facing CRSs,

but this difference was not statistically

significant. Due to the absence of any other

field data to estimate the incremental

effectiveness of rear-facing CRS over forward-

facing CRSs for children up to 2 years of age,

NHTSA used the weighted data in NASS–

CDS reported by McMurry, as shown in

Table A–1. Though the weighted data is

provided as a percentage, it can still be used

to determine incremental effectiveness of

rear-facing CRS over forward-facing CRS

since effectiveness is estimated from a ratio

of injured to uninjured occupants.

T

ABLE

A–1—N

UMBER OF

I

NJURED AND

U

NINJURED

C

HILD

O

CCUPANTS BY

A

GE AND

CRS O

RIENTATION

(RFCRS

OR

FFCRS) A

LONG

W

ITH

S

URVEY

-W

EIGHTED

P

ERCENTAGES

[NASS–CDS 1988–2015]

Age RFCRS FFCRS

Infants (0–11 months)

Uninjured .......................................................................................................................................... 551 (99.4%) 71 (99.3%)

Injured .............................................................................................................................................. 27 (0.6%) 3 (0.7%)

Effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRSs ......................................................................................... =1-(0.6/99.4)/(0.7/99.3) = 0.144

1 year-olds (12–23 months)

Uninjured .......................................................................................................................................... 98 (99.8%) 339 (99.5%)

Injured .............................................................................................................................................. 3 (0.2%) 14 (0.5%)

Effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRSs ......................................................................................... =1-(0.2/99.8)/(0.5/99.5) = 0.601

McMurry’s data in Table A–1 shows that

the effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs over

forward-facing CRSs for 0–11 months is 14.4

percent and that for 12–23 months is 60.1

percent. Based on biomechanical testing, the

incremental protection offered by rear-facing

CRSs over forward-facing CRSs should be

greater for smaller/younger children than

larger/older children. The 60.1 percent

incremental effectiveness of rear-facing CRSs

over forward-facing CRSs for 12–23 month-

old children seems to be rather high

considering the low fatality and injury rates

for this age group, so the agency used the

same effectiveness rate for this age group as

that computed for the 0–11 month age group.

Therefore, for estimating the potential

benefits of raising the minimum child weight

limit for forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12

kg, the incremental effectiveness of 14.4

percent was used for rear-facing CRSs in

preventing fatalities among children 0 to 23

months over that of forward-facing CRSs.

Number of Children Retrained in CRSs Killed

Annually in Motor Vehicle Crashes

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System

(FARS) data files for the 5-year period from

2010 to 2014 were analyzed to determine the

annual average number of children restrained

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69456

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

141

Data from 2000 CDC http://www.cdc.gov/

growthcharts.

142

PRIA for the January 28, 2014 NPRM to

include a side impact test in FMVSS No. 213 (79

FR 4570, Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012).

143

This NPRM upgrading the frontal sled test in

FMVSS No. 213.

in CRSs killed in motor vehicle crashes (see

Table A–2). These data files were also analyzed to determine the percentage of

fatally injured children in different types of CRSs (rear-facing CRSs, forward-facing CRSs,

and booster seats) (see Table A–3).

T

ABLE

A–2—A

VERAGE

A

NNUAL

F

ATALITIES

A

MONG

0–7 Y

EAR

-O

LD

C

HILDREN

R

ESTRAINED IN

CRS

SIN

R

EAR

S

EATING

P

OSITIONS OF

L

IGHT

V

EHICLES

[2010–2014 FARS]

Age (years)

Crash mode <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Percent

total

Rollover .................... 9.4 8.2 6.6 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.6 2.2 48.6 28.0

Front ......................... 9.2 11.8 9 11.8 8.8 5.8 4.6 2.2 63.2 36.4

Side .......................... 8.2 6.2 5.4 6 3.6 3 2.6 1.8 36.8 21.2

Near-side .................. 5.2 3.8 3.6 4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 23.2 13.4

Far-side .................... 3 2.4 1.8 2 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.6 13.6 7.8

Rear .......................... 4.2 5.6 4.2 3 3.2 2.6 1.4 0.8 25.0 14.4

Total .................. 31 31.8 25.2 27 21.8 17.6 12.2 7 173.6 100.0

T

ABLE

A–3—P

ERCENTAGE OF

F

ATALLY

I

NJURED

C

HILDREN

R

ESTRAINED IN

D

IFFERENT

CRS T

YPES OF

CRS

SIN

R

EAR

S

EATING

P

OSITIONS OF

L

IGHT

V

EHICLES BY

A

GE OF

C

HILD

[FARS 2010–2014]

Age (years)

CRS type <1

(percent) 1

(percent) 2

(percent) 3

(percent) 4

(percent) 5

(percent) 6

(percent) 7

(percent)

RFCRS ............................................. 73.5 11.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FFCRS ............................................. 26.5 85.1 78.7 58.2 38.5 36.5 23.1 11.1

Booster ............................................. 0.0 3.0 19.7 41.8 58.5 63.5 76.9 88.9

Percentage of Children 0 to 3–YO Weighing

Less Than 12 kg (26.5 lb)

The percent of children weighing less than

12 kg (26.5 lb) for children of age less than

1 year, 1-year, 2 years, and 3-years was

determined using the 2000 Center for Disease

Control (CDC) Growth Charts. The percent of

girls and boys weighing less than 12 kg from

the growth charts for each month from

newborn to 36 months of age was determined

and averaged for 12-month periods to

determine the percentage of children

weighing less than 12 kg for less than 1-year,

1-year, 2-years, and 3-years of age (see Table

A–4).

141

T

ABLE

A–4—P

ERCENT OF

C

HILDREN

W

EIGHING

L

ESS

T

HAN

12 kg (26.5 lb)

BY

C

HILD

A

GE

[2000 CDC growth charts]

<1 YO

(percent) 1 YO

(percent) 2 YO

(percent) 3 YO

(percent)

Percentile ......................................................................................................... 99.8 71.4 22.3 0

Percentage of Caregivers Following

Information on CRS Use on CRS Labels or the

Users’ Manual

The proposed raising of the manufacturer-

recommended minimum child weight for use

of forward-facing CRSs from 9 kg to 12 kg

could reduce premature graduation of

children from rear-facing CRSs to forward-

facing CRSs. However, this is contingent

upon caregivers reading and following the

manufacturer-supplied information on CRS

use on the CRS labels and the Users’ manual.

There is no field data on the percentage of

caregivers who would follow the information

on CRS labels or the manual but inferences

can be made from studies on CRS misuse.

NHTSA conducted a detailed review of side

impact crashes for the years 2002—2009

142

and frontal impact crashes for the years

2003–2013

143

where a CRS restrained child

was killed. This review showed that, among

survivable side and front crashes with a child

fatality, nearly half the children were

incorrectly restrained in CRSs, meaning that

the CRSs were either not installed

appropriately in the vehicle and/or the

children were not restrained correctly in

CRSs in accordance with manufacturer’s

instructions. Further, NHTSA’s National

Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS)

published in 2015 noted CRS misuse of about

46 percent (DOT HS 812 157). This high rate

of CRS misuse means that a change in the

minimum child weight for use of forward-

facing CRSs that is provided on CRS labels

and in the Users’ manual is highly unlikely

to lead to all caregivers making the switch,

as existing instructions themselves are not

followed by all caregivers.

The Agency does not have further

information on the efficacy of instructions on

CRS labels and the manual and is therefore

using the low rates of 15 percent and 50

percent of caregivers that would follow the

instructions on the CRS labels and manual

for forward-facing CRS use.

Estimating Lives Saved

Using the information derived from field

data on the incremental effectiveness of rear-

facing CRSs over forward-facing CRSs, the

number of children killed who are restrained

in forward-facing CRSs, the percentage of

children weighing less than 12 kg, and the

assumptions regarding caregivers following

CRS use instructions supplied by the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69457

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

144

The Abbreviated Injury Scale is a 6-point

ranking system used for ranking the severity of

injuries. AIS2+ Injuries means injuries of severity

level 2 (moderate), 3 (serious), 4 (severe), 5 (critical)

according to the Abbreviate Injury Scale.

www.aaam.org.

145

National Child Restraint Use Special Study,

DOT HS 811 679, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142. NCRUSS is a

large-scale nationally-representative survey that

involves both an inspection of the child passenger’s

restraint system by a certified child passenger safety

technician and a detailed interview of the driver.

The survey collected information on drivers and

child passengers ages 0–8 years between June and

August 2011.

146

Tables C–5 and C–6 of DOT–HS–812142.

manufacturer, the agency estimates that the

lives of 0.7–2.3 children 0–2 YO could be saved (see Table A–5) by raising the

manufacturer-recommended minimum child weight for use of forward-facing CRSs from

9 kg to 12 kg.

T

ABLE

A–5—E

STIMATE OF

P

OTENTIAL

L

IVES

S

AVED

F

ROM THE

P

ROPOSED

I

NCREASE IN THE

M

ANUFACTURER

-

R

ECOMMENDED

M

INIMUM

C

HILD

W

EIGHT FOR

U

SE OF

F

ORWARD

-F

ACING

CRS

S

F

ROM

9 kg

TO

12 kg

Age (years)

<1 1 2

Average Annual Fatalities (a) ...................................................................................................... 31 31.8 25.2

Percent in FFCRS (b) .................................................................................................................. 26.5% 85.1% 78.7%

Percent weight less than 26.5 lb (c) ............................................................................................ 99.8% 71.4% 22.3%

Target Population (d) = (a)×(b)×(c) ............................................................................................. 8.2 19.3 4.4

Effectiveness of RFCRSs vs FFCRSs (e) ................................................................................... 14.4% 14.4% 14.4%

Percent people following instructions (f) ..................................................................................... 15%–50% 15%–50% 15%–50%

Benefits for 15% follow instructions (d)×(e)×0.15 ........................................................................ 0.2 0.4 0.1

Benefits for 50% follow instructions (d)×(e)×0.5 .......................................................................... 0.6 1.4 0.3

Moderate-to-Critical Injuries Prevented

Among Children Restrained in CRSs in Motor

Vehicle Crashes

The agency analyzed NASS–CDS data files

for the year 2010–2014 to determine average

annual Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)

144

2+ injured children who are restrained in

CRSs in rear seating positions of light

vehicles. On an annual average, there were

31 children under 1 year of age and 77

children 1–2 years old that sustained AIS 2+

injuries for the period 2010–2014 (See Table

A–6).

T

ABLE

A–6—A

VERAGE

A

NNUAL

E

STIMATES OF

0

TO

7 Y

EAR

-O

LD

CRS R

ESTRAINED

C

HILDREN

W

ITH

AIS 2+ I

NJURIES IN

R

EAR

S

EATING

P

OSITIONS OF

L

IGHT

P

ASSENGER

V

EHICLES

I

NVOLVED IN

M

OTOR

V

EHICLE

C

RASHES BY

C

RASH

M

ODE

[Weighted data NASS–CDS 2010–2014]

Age (years)

Crash mode Under 1 1–2 YO 3 YO * 4–7 YO Total

Rollover ................................................................................ 0 0 0 172 172

Front ..................................................................................... 0 55 37 47 139

Side ...................................................................................... 30 14 10 1 55

Near-side .............................................................................. 29 5 4 0 38

Far-side ................................................................................ 1 9 6 1 17

Rear ..................................................................................... 1 7 5 73 86

Total .............................................................................. 31 77 51 293 452

* NASS–CDS data have very few cases of restrained injured children. For this reason, the ages are grouped together. About 40% of AIS 2+ in-

juries among AIS 2+ 1–3 YO children are to 3-year-old children. Therefore, the number of 1–2 YO children injured is 128*0.6 = 77.

The information on whether children were

restrained in RFCRS or FFCRS was not

available in many cases in the NASS–CDS

data files so this information was obtained

from the National Child Restraint Use Survey

System (NCRUSS)

145

as shown in Table

A–7.

146

T

ABLE

A–7—T

YPE OF

CRS U

SED TO

R

ESTRAIN

C

HILDREN IN

N

ON

-F

ATAL

C

RASHES

[NCRUSS]

RFCRS

percent FFCRS

percent Booster

percent Seat belt

percent

under 1YO ....................................................................................................... 96 4 1 ........................

1–2YO .............................................................................................................. 11 86 2 1

3 YO ................................................................................................................. ........................ 76 22 2

4–7YO .............................................................................................................. ........................ 30 64 6

As before, 15 percent to 50 percent of

caregivers were assumed would follow the

manufacturer’s instructions on CRS labels or

the Users’ manual regarding CRS use and

would keep children weighing less than 12

kg (26.5 lb) in rear-facing CRSs. Using these

assumptions along with the percentage

effectiveness of RFCRSs over FFCRS and the

2010–2014 NASS–CDS data, the agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69458

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

147

DOT HS 811 338 July 2010—Booster seat

effectiveness estimates based on CDS and State

data.

estimated that 1.0–3.5 AIS 2+ injuries could

be prevented for children 0–2 YO (see Table

A–8) by the proposed change in the

manufacturer-recommended minimum child

weight limit for forward-facing CRS use.

T

ABLE

A–8—E

STIMATE OF

I

NJURIES

P

REVENTED

F

ROM THE

P

ROPOSED

I

NCREASE IN THE

M

ANUFACTURER

-R

ECOMMENDED

M

INIMUM

C

HILD

W

EIGHT FOR

U

SE OF

F

ORWARD

-F

ACING

CRS

S

F

ROM

9 kg

TO

12 kg

Age (years)

<1 1–2

Average Annual AIS 2+ injured children (a) ............................................................................................................ 31 77

Percent in FFCRS (b) .............................................................................................................................................. 4.0% 86.0%

Percent weight less than 12 kg (26.5 lb) (c) ........................................................................................................... 99.8% 71.4%

Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c) .......................................................................................................................... 1.2 47.3

Effectiveness of RFCRSs vs FFCRSs (e) ............................................................................................................... 14.4% 14.4%

Percent people following label (f) ............................................................................................................................ 15%–50% 15%–50%

Benefits for 15% follow label (d)x(e)x0.15 .............................................................................................................. 0.0 1.0

Benefits for 50% follow label (d)x(e)x0.50 .............................................................................................................. 0.1 3.4

The agency estimates that the increase in

the minimum child weight from 9 kg to 12

kg for FFCRS use could potentially save 0.7–

2.3 lives and prevent 1.0–3.5 AIS 2+ injuries.

(2) Increasing Manufacturer-Recommended

Minimum Child Weight for Booster Seat Use

Increasing the manufacturer-recommended

minimum child weight for booster seat use

from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 lb to 40 lb) would

reduce premature graduation from forward-

facing CRSs to booster seats. NHTSA

determined that among 3- to 4-year-olds,

there is a 27 percent increased risk of

moderate to fatal injuries when restrained in

booster seats compared to forward-facing

CRSs.

147

The effectiveness of FFCRS over

booster seats is likely reduced for older

children who may be taller and have

improved belt fit in a booster seat. So, for

children 5—7 years of age, NHTSA assumed

that there is a 10 percent increased risk of

fatal injuries when restrained in booster seats

compared to forward-facing CRSs. An

average 3-year old weighs 13.6 kg (30 lb) and

an average 4-year old weighs 16.1 kg (35.5

lb). Using the 2000 Center for Disease Control

(CDC) Growth Charts, the agency determined

the percentage of children weighing less than

18.2 kg (40 lb) for each age group (see Table

A–9).

T

ABLE

A–9. P

ERCENT OF

C

HILDREN

W

EIGHING

L

ESS

T

HAN

18.2 kg (40 lb)

BY

A

GE OF

C

HILD

[2000 CDC growth charts]

2 YO

(percent) 3 YO

(percent) 4 YO

(percent) 5 YO

(percent) 6 YO

(percent) 7 YO

(percent)

Percentile ................................................. 100 100 82.5 50 20 4

To determine the lives saved by increasing

the minimum child weight for booster seat

use, the agency: (1) Used the fatality data in

Table A–2, the percentage of children in

booster seats in Table A–3, and the

percentage of children weighing less than

18.2 kg (40 lb) in Table A–9; (2) made the

same assumptions that 15 percent to 50

percent of caregivers would follow

manufacturer’s instructions in the CRS labels

and/or Users’ manual and keep children

weighing less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) in CRSs

with internal harnesses, and (3) followed a

similar analysis method as in Table A–5.

Based on this analysis, the agency estimates

that 1.2- 4 lives could potentially be saved

(see Table A–10) by raising the manufacturer-

recommended minimum child weight for

booster seat use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30

lb to 40 lb).

T

ABLE

A–10—E

STIMATE OF

L

IVES

S

AVED

F

OR

P

ROPOSED

L

ABEL

C

HANGE

I

NCREASING

W

EIGHT OF

C

HILDREN IN

B

OOSTER

S

EATS

F

ROM

13.6

TO

18.2 kg

[30 to 40 lb]

Age

2 3 4 5 6 7

Average Annual Fatalities (a) .................. 25.2 27 21.8 17.6 12.2 7

Percent in booster seats (b) .................... 19.7% 41.8% 58.5% 63.5% 76.9% 88.9%

Percent weight less than 18.2 kg

(40 lb) (c) .............................................. 100.0% 100.0% 82.5% 50.0% 20.0% 4.0%

Target Population (d) = (a)x(b)x(c) .......... 5.0 11.3 10.5 5.6 1.9 0.2

Effectiveness of FFCRSs vs Boosters (e) 27.0% 27.0% 27.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

Percent people following label (f) ............ 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50% 15%-50%

Benefits for 50% follow label (d)x(e)x0.15 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0

Benefits for 15% follow label (d)x(e)x0.5 0.7 1.5 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

69459

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

Using the data in Table A–6 and Table A–

7 and following the analysis as shown in

Table A–10, the number of AIS 2+ injuries

were estimated that could potentially be

prevented by the proposed increase in the

minimum child weight recommendation for

booster seat use from 13.6 to 18.2 kg (30 to

40 lb). This analysis, shown in Table A–11,

estimated that 1.6–5.2 AIS 2+ injuries could

be prevented.

T

ABLE

A–11—E

STIMATE OF

I

NJURIES

P

REVENTED FOR

P

ROPOSED

I

NCREASE IN

M

ANUFACTURER

-R

ECOMMENDED

M

INIMUM

C

HILD

W

EIGHT FOR

B

OOSTER

S

EAT

U

SE

F

ROM

13.6

TO

18.2 kg

[30 to 40 lb]

Age

1–3 4–7

Average Annual AIS 2+ injured children (a) ............................................................................................................ 128 293

Percent in Boosters (b) ............................................................................................................................................ 9.0% 64.0%

Percent weight less than 18.2 kg (40 lb) (c) ........................................................................................................... 100.0% 39.1%

Target Population (d) = (a)×(b)×(c) ......................................................................................................................... 11.5 73.4

Effectiveness of FFCRSs vs. boosters (e) .............................................................................................................. 27.0% 10.0%

Percent people following label (f) ............................................................................................................................ 15%–50% 15%–50%

Benefits for 70% follow label (d)×(e)×(f) .................................................................................................................. 0.5 1.1

Benefits for 15% follow label (d)×(e)×0.15 .............................................................................................................. 1.6 3.7

The agency estimates that the increase in

the minimum child weight for booster seat

use from 13.6 kg to 18.2 kg (30 lb to 40 lb)

could potentially save 1.2–4 lives and

prevent 1.6–5.2 AIS 2+ injuries.

In summary, the proposed increase in the

manufacturer-recommended minimum child

weight for forward-facing CRS use and

booster seat use could potential save 1.9 to

6.3 lives and prevent 2.6 to 8.7 AIS 2+

injuries.

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

James C. Owens,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2020–21477 Filed 10–30–20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 30, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02NOP2.SGM 02NOP2

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

Published date	02 November 2020
Citation	85 FR 69388
Record Number	2020-21477
Section	Proposed rules
Court	National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users