Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems-Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference, 4569-4608 [2014-01568]

Download as PDF Vol. 79 Tuesday, No. 18 January 28, 2014 Part III Department of Transportation ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems—Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0012] RIN 2127–AK95 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Systems—Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: This NPRM proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)). NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and by attenuating crash forces to the child’s head and chest. This NPRM is also issued toward fulfillment of a statutory mandate set forth in the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ (July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014. Proposed compliance date: We propose that the compliance date for the amendments in this rulemaking action would be three years following the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Optional early compliance would be 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 https://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. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 • 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. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of this document. You may also call the Docket at 202– 366–9324. 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 https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. 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). Mailing address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Statutory Mandate III. The Existing Standard IV. Summary of Proposed Amendments V. Guiding Principles VI. Potentially Affected Child Restraints VII. Real World Analysis VIII. Past NHTSA Efforts IX. Side Impact Program Developments a. Side Impact Environment for Children b. Injury Mechanisms in Side Impact c. Global Dynamic Side Impact Tests d. Side Impact Test Dummy X. Developing NHTSA’s Side Impact Test a. Assessment of Existing Global Efforts b. Takata Test Procedure XI. The Proposed Test Procedure a. Sled Kinematic Parameters 1. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile (Representing the Struck Vehicle) 2. Door Velocity 3. Sled Buck Angle (Replicating Longitudinal Component of the Direction of Force) b. Rear Seat Environment Parameters 1. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness 2. Rear Seat Door Stiffness 3. Rear Seat Environment Geometry c. Dynamic Validation of the Sled Test XII. Proposed Dynamic Performance a. Q3s Dummy PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 b. CRABI Dummy c. Energy Absorption and Distribution XIII. Fleet Testing a. Q3s Dummy b. CRABI Dummy XIV. Countermeasure Assessment XV. Petition Regarding Deceleration Sled System XVI. Costs and Benefits XVII. Effective Date XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses XIX. Public Participation This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems,’’ to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). Frontal and side crashes account for most child occupant fatalities. Standard No. 213 currently requires child restraints to meet a dynamic test simulating a 48.3 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) frontal impact. Today’s proposal would require an additional test in which such child restraints must protect the child occupant in a dynamic test simulating a full-scale vehicle-to-vehicle side impact. Child restraints would be tested with a newly-developed instrumented side impact test dummy representing a 3year-old child, called the Q3s dummy, and with a well-established 12-monthold child test dummy (the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy). NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and by attenuating crash forces to the child’s head and chest. This NPRM is also issued toward fulfillment of a statutory mandate set forth in the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ (July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts. I. Executive Summary Impacts to the side of a vehicle rank almost equal to frontal crashes as a source of occupant fatalities and serious injuries to children ages 0 to 12. Side impacts are especially dangerous when the impact is on the passenger compartment because, unlike a frontal or rear-end crash, there are no substantial, crushable metal structures between the occupant and the impacting vehicle or object. The door collapses into the passenger compartment and the occupants contact the door relatively E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 quickly after the crash at a high relative velocity.1 In a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact crash, the striking vehicle first interacts with the door structure of the struck vehicle and commences crushing the door and intruding laterally into the vehicle compartment. Second, the striking vehicle engages the sill of the struck vehicle and begins to push the struck vehicle away. At this time, the occupant sitting in the vehicle experiences the struck vehicle seat moving away from the impacting vehicle while the door intrudes towards him or her. Next, the occupant interacts with the intruding door, after which the occupant is accelerated away from the door until the occupant reaches the velocity of the struck and striking vehicle. Passenger vehicles provide protection in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes by meeting FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side impact protection.’’ FMVSS No. 214 requires passenger vehicles to provide side impact protection in several different side crashes. In a full-scale crash test representing a severe intersection collision between two passenger vehicles, FMVSS No. 214 requires passenger vehicles to protect occupants when the vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB) simulating an impacting vehicle.2 The FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test involves an MDB weighing 1,360 kg (3,000 lb), to represent a vehicle which is traveling at 48.3 kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour (mph)) striking the side of another vehicle which is traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph).3 The struck vehicle must limit the potential for injuries to an occupant’s 1 Kahane, November 1982, NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 806 314. 2 FMVSS No. 214 also specifies a static laboratory test that has greatly improved side door strength and protection against side impacts with fixed objects. The static test has resulted in manufacturers reinforcing side doors with a horizontal beam. In addition, FMVSS No. 214 specifies a full-scale side crash test of a vehicle into a pole, which has resulted in the installation of side air bags to protect against head and chest injuries. 3 In the FMVSS No. 214 test, only the striking ‘‘vehicle,’’ represented by the MDB, is moving. Using vector analysis, the agency combined the impact speed and impact angle data in crash files to determine that the dynamics and forces of a crash in which a vehicle traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) perpendicularly strikes the side of a vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph) could be represented by a test configuration in which: The test vehicle is stationary; the longitudinal centerline of the MDB is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the test vehicle; the front and rear wheels of the MDB are crabbed at an angle of 27 degrees to the right of its longitudinal centerline in a left side impact and to the left of that centerline in a right side impact; and the MDB moves at that angle and at a speed of 54 km/h (33.5 mph) into the side of the struck vehicle. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 head, thorax, and pelvis, as measured by test dummies seated in the front outboard seat and rear outboard seat on the struck side of the vehicle (‘‘near side’’ positions). Today’s NPRM proposes a side impact test that simulates the two-vehicle side crash replicated by the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test of a small passenger car. Today’s proposal would require all child restraint systems (CRSs) designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to18 kg (40 lb) to meet specific performance criteria in a dynamic sled test that simulates the MDB test (striking vehicle traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) impacting the struck vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph)). Approximately 92 percent of side crashes involving restrained children are of equivalent or lower crash severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test of a small passenger car.4 The proposed sled test is the first of its kind in the world for testing child restraints in a sled system that simulates the vehicle acceleration and intruding door of a small passenger car in a side impact (a vehicle-to-vehicle intersection crash). We do not have sufficient data to determine what share of covered crashes involve an intruding door, however door intrusion is a causative factor for moderate and serious injury to children in side impacts. Child restraints would be tested in the side impact sled test with the Q3s instrumented side impact test dummy representing the size and weight of a 3-year-old (3 YO) child, and with the CRABI dummy representing a 12-month-old (12 MO) infant. NHTSA has previously published an NPRM proposing to amend our regulation for anthropomorphic test devices, 49 CFR Part 572, to add specifications for the Q3s (78 FR 69944; November 21, 2013). The CRABI dummy’s specifications are incorporated into 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R. NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that subject child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts. The CRSs would have to effectively restrain the child, prevent harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and attenuate crash forces to the child’s chest. Injury criteria (expressed in terms of a head injury criterion (HIC) and chest deflection) are proposed for the Q3s. These criteria allow a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the 4 Obtained from an analysis of the National Automotive Sampling System—Crashworthiness Data System (NASS–CDS) data files for the years 1995–2009 for restrained children 0 to 12 YO in all restraint environments including seat belts and CRS. Details of the analysis are provided in the technical report in the docket for this NPRM. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4571 CRS to prevent or attenuate head and chest impact with the intruding door. The 12 MO CRABI would be used to measure the containment capability of the CRS (the ability to prevent the dummy’s head from making contact with the intruding door of the sled assembly). In addition, CRSs would be required to meet other structural integrity requirements in the sled test that ensure a sound level of performance in side impacts. We estimate that a final rule resulting from this proposal would reduce 5.2 fatalities and 64 non-fatal injuries (MAIS 5 1–5) annually (see Table 1 below).6 The equivalent lives and the monetized benefits were estimated in accordance with guidance issued February 28, 2013 by the Office of the Secretary 7 regarding the treatment of value of a statistical life in regulatory analyses. A final rule resulting from this proposal is estimated to save 18.26 equivalent lives annually. The monetized annual benefits of the proposed rule at 3 and 7 percent discount rates are $182.6 million and $165.7 million, respectively (Table 2). We estimate that the annual cost of this proposed rule would be approximately $3.7 million. The countermeasures may include larger wings and padding with energy absorption characteristics that cost, on average, approximately $0.50 per CRS designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 40 lb (both forward-facing and rearfacing) (Table 3 below). The annual net benefits are estimated to be $162.0 million (7 percent discount rate) to $178.9 million (3 percent discount rate) as shown in Table 4. Because the proposed rule is cost beneficial just by comparing costs to monetized economic benefits, and there is a net benefit, we are not providing a net cost per equivalent life saved since no value would be provided by such an estimate. 5 MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale) represents the maximum injury severity of an occupant based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). AIS ranks individual injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6: 1 = minor, 2 = moderate, 3 = serious, 4 = severe, 5 = critical, and 6 = maximum (untreatable). MAIS 3+ injuries represent MAIS injuries at an AIS level of 3, 4, 5, or 6. 6 NHTSA has developed a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) that discusses issues relating to the potential costs, benefits, and other impacts of this regulatory action. The PRIA is available in the docket for this NPRM and may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document. 7 https://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/ VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BENEFITS Fatalities ................................... TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BENEFITS— Continued 5.2 Non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1 to 5) 64 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED MONETIZED BENEFITS [In millions of 2010 dollars] Economic benefits 3 Percent Discount Rate ............................................................................................................. 7 Percent Discount Rate ............................................................................................................. TABLE 3—ESTIMATED COSTS (2010 ECONOMICS) Average cost per CRS designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 40 lb. $16.0 14.4 Value of statistical life $166.6 151.3 Total benefits $182.6 165.7 TABLE 3—ESTIMATED COSTS (2010 ECONOMICS)—Continued Total annual cost ........... $0.50 3.7 million TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS [In millions of 2010 dollars] Annualized costs ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ 7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ Accident data indicate that CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) are generally already remarkably effective in reducing the risk of death and serious injury in side impacts. We have observed in recent years that increasing numbers of these CRSs appear to have more side structure coverage (CRS side ‘‘wings’’) and side padding than before.8 Because the design of the side wings and stiffness of the padding are factors that affect the containment of the child dummy and the injury measures, we consider the side wing coverage and increased padding to be overall positive developments. Yet, because FMVSS No. 213 currently does not have a side impact test, a quantifiable assessment of the protective qualities of the features was heretofore not possible. Today’s NPRM would establish performance requirements that ensure that the wings, padding, padding-like features, or other countermeasures employed in recent years reportedly to provide protection in side impacts will in fact achieve a minimum level of performance that will reduce the risk of injury or fatality in side impacts. For CRS designs that have 8 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. https://www.carseat.org/ Pictorial/InfantPict,1-11.pdf and https:// www.carseat.org/Pictorial/3-Five-%20Point-np.pdf. Last accessed January 24, 2013. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 not yet incorporated side impact protection features, today’s NPRM is the first step toward ensuring that they will. II. Statutory Mandate On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the ‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ (MAP–21), P.L. 112–141. Subtitle E of MAP–21, entitled ‘‘Child Safety Standards,’’ includes section 31501(a) which states that, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes.9 We interpret this provision of MAP– 21 as providing us a fair amount of discretion. NHTSA informed Congress in 2004 that enhanced side impact protection for children in child restraints was a priority for NHTSA.10 9 Subtitle E also includes provisions for commencing a rulemaking to amend the standard seat assembly specifications in FMVSS No. 213 to better simulate a single representative motor vehicle rear seat (section 31501(b)), and initiating a rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems,’’ to improve the ease of use of lower anchorages and tethers (section 31502(a)). The agency anticipates dealing with these provisions in future rulemakings. 10 NHTSA Report to Congress, ‘‘Child Restraint Systems, Transportation Recall Enhancement, PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 $3.7 3.7 Annualized benefits $182.6 165.7 Net benefits $178.9 162.0 The agency informed Congress that it will continue efforts to obtain detailed side crash data to identify specific injury mechanisms involving children and will work on countermeasure development using test dummies, including the European Q3 dummy then available, for improved side impact protection. Our current NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013, March 2011,11 announced our intention to issue an NPRM in 2012 on child restraint side impact protection. The plan shows that we were planning to ‘‘[p]ropose test procedures in FMVSS No. 213 to assess child restraint performance in near-side impacts. Amend Part 572 to add the Q3s dummy, the 3-year-old side impact version of the Q-series of child dummies.’’ We believe that MAP–21’s short deadline for issuance of a final rule indicates that Congress intended for NHTSA to use the existing state of knowledge gained from our research efforts to initiate and complete the regulation as the agency had planned. There are no child test dummies other than the Q3s available at this time that have been proven sufficiently durable Accountability, and Documentation Act,’’ February 2004. www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/ NHTSAReports/TREAD.pdf. 11 Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0108–0032. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules and reliable for use in the proposed FMVSS No. 213 side impact testing. The level and amount of effort needed to further develop and validate a different test procedure, or new child side impact test dummies, far exceeds what could be accomplished within the time constraints of the Act. Further, MAP–21 requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213, which means that the rulemaking must be conducted in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) (‘‘Vehicle Safety Act’’). Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms.12 ‘‘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.’’ 13 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.14 The Secretary must also consider the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths.15 We have developed a regulation that will improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts, in accordance with MAP– 21, while meeting the criteria of section 30111 of the Vehicle Safety Act. We believe that the proposed regulation meets the need for safety, is stated in objective terms, and is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate. While the language of section 31501(a) of MAP–21 is broad enough to encompass a large universe of child restraint systems, there are technical and practical reasons for applying the dynamic side impact test only to CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). For one, there is no side impact dummy representative of 12 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). 14 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 15 Id. 13 49 VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 children larger than those represented by the Q3s that can reasonably be used to test CRSs for children above 18 kg (40 lb) to the dynamic side impact requirements proposed today. Without an appropriate test dummy, the data from a dynamic test would not provide a meaningful assessment of the performance of the CRS in protecting children of weights above 18 kg (40 lb). In addition, the seated height of children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb) who are restrained in child restraints is typically sufficient to take advantage of the vehicle’s side impact protection systems, such as side curtain air bags. Thus, the safety need for Standard No. 213’s dynamic side impact requirements is attenuated for these CRSs. These reasons are further discussed in a section below, and are presented for public comment. III. The Existing Standard CRSs are highly effective in reducing the likelihood of death or serious 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 (light truck).16 Child restraint effectiveness for children between the ages 1 to 4 YO is 54 percent in passenger cars and 59 percent in light trucks. Id. The most significant dynamic performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 relevant to this NPRM are briefly described below.17 l. The crash performance of a CRS is evaluated in a frontal dynamic test involving a 48.3 km/h (30 mph) velocity change, which is representative of a severe crash. CRSs are tested while attached to a standardized seat assembly representative of a passenger vehicle seat. CRSs other than booster seats must meet minimum performance requirements when anchored to the standard seat assembly with a lap belt only, or with the lower anchorages of 16 ‘‘Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness,’’ Research Note, National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT HS 96855, December 1996, https://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/96855.pdf, last accessed on May 2, 2012. 17 FMVSS No. 213 also has labeling and owner’s manual requirements for proper use of the CRS, including requirements that safety warnings be prominently displayed on the CRS. The standard also includes requirements for the flammability resistance of the CRS. The standard also establishes an owner-registration program so that purchasers can register with the manufacturer and be directly notified in the event of a safety recall. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4573 the ‘‘LATCH’’ 18 system. The CRSs must meet more stringent head excursion requirements in another test, one in which a top tether, if provided, is permitted to be attached. Beltpositioning (booster) seats are tested on the standard seat assembly using a lap and shoulder belt.19 2. CRSs are dynamically tested with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) (child test dummies) representative of the children for whom the CRS is recommended. FMVSS No. 213 specifies the use of ATDs representing a newborn, a 12 MO infant, a 3 YO, a 6 YO, a weighted 6 YO, and a 10 YO.20 Except for the newborn and weighted 6 YO ATDs, the test dummies are equipped with instrumentation measuring crash forces imposed on the ATD. The mass, size, and kinematics of the ATDs are designed to replicate those of a human child. 3. To protect the child, FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to limit the amount of force that can be exerted on the head and chest of the ATD during the dynamic test. FMVSS No. 213 also requires CRSs to meet head excursion limits to reduce the possibility of head injury from contact with vehicle interior surfaces and ejection, and limits knee excursion. 4. FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to maintain system integrity (i.e., not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm a child). The standard also specifies requirements for the size and shape of contactable surfaces of the CRS to ensure that surfaces that can harm on impact are absent, and specifies requirements for the performance of belts and buckles to make sure that, among other things, a buckle can be swiftly unlatched after a crash by an adult for expeditious egress from the crash site but cannot be easily unbuckled by an unsupervised child. 18 LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, an acronym developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for installation in motor vehicles. LATCH consists of two lower anchorages, and one upper tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage includes a rigid round rod or ‘‘bar’’ onto which a hook, a jawlike buckle or other connector can be snapped. The bars are located at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The upper tether anchorage is a ring-like object to which the upper tether of a child restraint system can be attached. FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to be equipped with attachments that enable the CRS to attach to the vehicle’s LATCH system. 19 Built-in CRSs are evaluated by crash testing the vehicle into which the CRSs are built, or by simulating a crash with the built-in seat dynamically tested with parts of the vehicle surrounding it. 20 NHTSA will use the 10 YO child dummy in compliance testing to test CRSs manufactured on or after February 27, 2014. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 IV. Summary of Proposed Amendments This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). The side impact test requirements would be specified in a new standard, FMVSS No. ‘‘213a.’’ FMVSS No. 213 would be amended to include a requirement that the CRSs covered by this NPRM must meet the new FMVSS No. 213a in addition to the requirements established in FMVSS No. 213.21 The most significant amendments proposed by this NPRM are described below. 1. A dynamic (sled) test would be used to evaluate the performance of the CRS in a side impact. The sled test was developed based on an acceleration sled system 22 developed by Takata. The test procedure simulates the two-vehicle side crash replicated in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214 (striking vehicle traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph)) impacting the struck vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph). The proposed sled test simulates a near-side side impact of a small passenger car. It simulates the velocity of the striking vehicle, the struck vehicle, and an intruding door. 2. The test buck consists of a sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat (representative of a rear seat designated seating position) mounted to a rail system along with a ‘‘side door’’ structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck structure. The sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat and side door are representative of today’s passenger vehicles. This ‘‘side impact seat assembly’’ (SISA) proposed for the side impact test is specified by drawings that have been placed in the docket for today’s NPRM. The sliding vehicle seat is positioned sufficiently away from the side door to allow the sled to reach a desired velocity (31.3 km/h) prior to the time the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat starts to accelerate to a specific acceleration profile. 3. Most CRSs would be attached using LATCH to the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat of the SISA. CRSs covered by this NPRM that are not currently required by FMVSS No. 213 to have LATCH 21 A final rule could incorporate the proposed requirements into FMVSS No. 213, rather than in a separate FMVSS No. 213a. This NPRM shows the proposed requirements separately in FMVSS No. 213a for plain language purposes and the reader’s convenience. 22 An acceleration sled is accelerated from rest to a prescribed acceleration profile to simulate the occupant compartment deceleration in a crash event. In comparison, a ‘‘deceleration sled’’ is first accelerated to a target velocity and then is decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile to simulate the same event. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 attachments (i.e., belt-positioning seats) would be tested using a lap and shoulder belt on the SISA. The center of the CRS is positioned 300 mm from the edge of the sliding seat next to the intruding door (simulating a near-side position). At the time the sliding seat starts to accelerate, the armrest on the door is located 32 mm from the edge of the seat towards the child restraint system. For forward-facing CRSs with LATCH attachments, the LATCH lower anchorages and the top tether, if provided, would be used (assuming the top tether is recommended for use in motor vehicles by the CRS manufacturer). 4. CRSs recommended for children with weights that include 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) would be tested on the SISA with an ATD representing a 3 YO child, referred to as the ‘‘Q3s.’’ The Q3s is a side impact version of the 3 YO child Q-series dummy (Q3), a frontal crash dummy developed in Europe. CRSs recommended to seat children with weights up to 10 kg (22 lb) would be tested with the 12 MO CRABI dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R). 5. Injury criteria (expressed in terms of HIC15 23 and chest deflection) are proposed for the Q3s. These criteria allow a quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the CRS, and the ability of the CRS to prevent or attenuate head and chest impact with the intruding door. The CRABI would be used to measure the containment capability (the ability to prevent the ATD’s head from contacting the intruding door of the SISA) of CRSs recommended for children weighing more than 5 kg (11 lb) and up to 10 kg (22 lb). In addition, CRSs would be required to meet structural integrity and other requirements described in item 4 of the previous section. V. Guiding Principles The following principles guided our decision-making in developing this NPRM. Several of these principles have guided our past rulemakings on FMVSS No. 213. a. NHTSA estimates that CRSs are already 42 percent effective in preventing death in side crashes of 0 to 3 YO children.24 This estimated degree 23 Head injury criterion that is based on the integration of resultant head acceleration over a 15 millisecond duration. 24 NHTSA conducted an analysis of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data files of real world fatal non-rollover frontal and side crashes of passenger cars and light trucks and vans involving children for the years 1995 to 2009. From this analysis, the agency estimated the effectiveness of CRSs in preventing fatalities among 0 to 3 YO children to be 42 percent in side crashes and 52 percent in frontal crashes. The analysis method is PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of effectiveness is high, and is only 11 percentage points lower than CRS effectiveness in frontal crashes (53 percent), notwithstanding that FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to meet specific performance requirements in a frontal impact sled test but has no such dynamic performance requirements in side impact. We believe that the effectiveness of CRSs in side impact can be attributed to the CRS harness containing the child in the seating position, thereby mitigating harmful contact with interior vehicle components, and to the CRS structure shielding the child from direct impact and absorbing some of the crash forces. b. In making regulatory decisions on possible enhancements to CRS performance, the agency must bear in mind the consumer acceptance of cost increases to an already highly-effective item of safety equipment. Any enhancement that would significantly raise the price of the restraints could potentially have an adverse effect on the sales of this voluntarily-purchased equipment. 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. Thus, to maximize the total safety benefits of its efforts on FMVSS No. 213, the agency must balance those improvements against impacts on the price of restraints. In addition, NHTSA must also consider the effects of improved performance on the ease of using child restraints. If the use of child restraints becomes overly complex or unwieldy, the twin problems of misuse and nonuse of child restraints could be exacerbated. c. Estimating the net effect on safety of this rulemaking, consistent with the principles for regulatory decisionmaking set forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 12286, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ and E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ was limited by several factors. One was that data are sparse on side crashes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities to children in CRSs. Data indicate that side crashes resulting in fatalities to children in CRSs mainly occur in very severe, un-survivable side impact conditions. A dynamic test involving a very high test speed or intrusion level may have undesirable impacts on FMVSS No. 213 regarding practicability, cost, and possible detrimental effects on safety (i.e., the possible effects on the use of CRSs, discussed above). similar to that reported in the NCSA Research Note, ‘‘Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness,’’ DOT HS 96855 and is also detailed in the technical report in the docket. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Another limiting factor was there is no information comparing the real world performance of ‘‘good’’ performing CRSs versus ‘‘poor’’ performing CRSs. Without these data, we had to use test data and injury curves to determine the effectiveness of possible countermeasures (e.g., large side wings with energy absorbing padding). We are also limited by the unavailability of child ATDs for side impact testing. Currently, there is only an ATD representing a 3 YO child that has been specially developed for side impacts. The 12 MO CRABI dummy is a frontal impact dummy, and can only be used in a limited capacity to estimate benefits in this side impact rulemaking. d. In developing this NPRM, we sought to build on the levels of side impact protection provided by FMVSS No. 214. The sled test proposed today is based on the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test of a small passenger car, replicating the real-world side crashes that occur most frequently today. The proposed sled test set-up is representative of the side impact environment in which a CRS would be used in today’s vehicles. The environment is based on the rear seat and side door of vehicles meeting FMVSS No. 214. Children seated in the rear seat are benefitting from FMVSS No. 214’s requirements: Side door beams and door and sill structure reinforcements prevent intrusion and enable the vehicle to better manage the crash energy.25 Yet, due to their size and fragility, infants and toddlers are dependent on child restraint systems to augment FMVSS No. 214 protection, and to manage the side crash energy further. In developing this NPRM, our objectives were to ensure that CRSs provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door or CRS structure, and by attenuating crashes forces to the child’s chest. e. This rulemaking is issued in furtherance of MAP–21. MAP–21 requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes. VI. Potentially Affected Child Restraints Consistent with the principles discussed above, we propose to apply the side impact test requirements to all 25 Side curtain air bags installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214’s pole test will provide head protection to children who sit high enough (whether in a CRS or directly on the vehicle seat) to experience head-to-curtain interaction in a side crash. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). Children in the 0 to 18 kg (40 lb) group (which encompasses children from birth to about 4 YO) have a high rate of child restraint use (<1 YO = 98 percent and 1 to 3 YO 26 = 93 percent according to the 2009 National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS) 27), which provides a good opportunity for improving CRS performance and reducing injuries and fatalities through a side impact regulation.28 We believe that focusing at this time on the 0 to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO) age group is highly appropriate for several reasons. Real-world data show that head injuries are the most common injuries in a side impact environment. According to McCray,29 head injuries in children 1 to 3 YO are slightly higher than for overall children 0 to12 years of age. Possible countermeasures available to CRS manufacturers to reduce the risk of head injury are the addition of padding or larger side ‘‘wing’’ structures to keep the child’s head contained and to reduce the severity of the impact. It appears from our testing that energyabsorbing padding added to the CRS around the head area of the child and to the side structures (CRS side ‘‘wings’’) would enable forward- and rear-facing CRSs to meet the proposed requirements without adding any additional structures to the seats. Focusing on children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO age group) also appropriately reflects the near-side impact environment in which CRSs will be used. Our test results indicated that an important factor in the near side impact environment is the position of the child’s head with respect to the ‘‘beltline’’ (also referred to as the window sill) 30 of the vehicle door. The 26 Note that in survey data a child who is 1 day shy of his or her 4th birth day is still considered a 3 YO. Therefore survey data representing 1 to 3 YO children include 3 YO children who are nearly 4 YO and at the 40 lb weight limit representing the weight of a 75th percentile 4 YO child or an average 5 YO child. 27 Pikrell, T.M., Ye, T. Report Number DOT HS 811 377. September 2010. NSUBS is a probabilitybased nationwide child restraint use survey conducted by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA). 28 Children between 4 and 12 YO have lower child restraint use (4 to 7 YO = 55 percent and 8 to 12 YO = 6 percent). Data show that 43 percent of 4 to 7 YO and 78 percent of 8 to 12 YO children use seat belts. 29 McCray, L., Scarboro, M., Brewer, J. ‘‘Injuries to children one to three years old in side impact crashes,’’ 20th International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2007. Paper Number 07–0186. 30 The beltline of a vehicle is a term used in vehicle design and styling, referring to the nominally horizontal line below the side glazing of PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4575 sitting height of older children restrained in CRSs typically positions the head high enough above the beltline to benefit from the vehicle’s FMVSS No. 214 side impact safety features, such as side window curtain air bags. The need for a side impact requirement in FMVSS No. 213 may be lessened for those children. However, when the child’s head is below the beltline, as likely with children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO) in CRSs, there is greater need for FMVSS No. 213 side impact protection, as less benefit is attained from the vehicle countermeasures. Importantly also, due to the absence of an array of side impact child test dummies, we believe that focusing this NPRM on CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) best accords with Vehicle Safety Act requirements, which, among other factors, require each FMVSS to be ‘‘appropriate for the types of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.’’ 31 In FMVSS No. 213’s frontal crash program, a 3 YO child dummy (weighing 16.3 kg (36 lb)) is considered representative of children weighing 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb), and is used to test CRSs recommended for children weighing 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb). Similarly, we believe that the Q3s 3 YO side impact test dummy (weighing 14.5 kg (32 lb)) would be an appropriate test dummy to evaluate CRSs designed for children weighing 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb). On the other hand, currently, the 3 YO child dummy used in the frontal crash program is not used to test CRSs with regard to performance in restraining children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb). This is because the 3 YO test dummy is not considered representative of children for whom the CRS is recommended. Similarly, we believe that the Q3s, which has only been made available recently, would not be a suitable dummy to test the performance of CRSs with respect to children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb). The Q3s would not be representative of children for whom the CRS is recommended, and test data obtained by use of the ATD would not likely be meaningful as to the performance of the CRS in restraining a vehicle, which separates the glazing area from the lower body. Passenger vehicles are required to provide head protection in side impacts and ejection mitigation in rollovers, pursuant to FMVSS No. 214 and FMVSS No. 226, ‘‘Ejection mitigation,’’ respectively. The countermeasure provided to meet FMVSS No. 226, usually a side curtain air bag, must meet performance requirements that, in effect, will necessitate coverage of the side windows to the beltline of the vehicle. 31 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb). We request comments on the merits of amending FMVSS No. 213 at this time to improve the protection of children weighing over 18 kg (40 lb), assessing performance of the CRSs with the Q3s or by other means. We also seek comments on whether belt-positioning (booster) seats recommended for older children have design limitations that might impede their ability to meet the proposed requirements. We have noticed that some belt-positioning seats for older children are advertised as providing side impact protection. We ask manufacturers to provide us information on the methods they use to demonstrate that their side impact design features for belt-positioning seats do in fact improve protection in side impacts. There are a number of different types of child restraints designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). With regard to beltpositioning (booster) seats recommended for children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb),32 we propose testing the seats with the Q3s.33 The SISA would be equipped with Type II (lap and shoulder) belts to test the beltpositioning boosters. Belt-positioning (booster) seats sold for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) might have to improve some side wing structures, but we tentatively believe that the trade-off in possible increased size of side wing structures and padding and cost of these belt-positioning seats versus improved side impact protection is worthwhile for protection of this young child group (children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO age group)). This approach of testing all CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb), including belt-positioning seats, accords with MAP–21. On the other hand, we believe that the proposed requirements should not apply to harnesses. FMVSS No. 213 defines a harness as ‘‘a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint 32 Currently, FMVSS No. 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending belt-positioning seats for children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). 33 This discussion also applies to convertible or front-facing child restraint systems that are equipped with an internal harness, that are also sold for use as a belt-positioning booster once the child reaches a certain weight or height (the consumer is instructed to remove the harness when using the CRS as a belt-positioning seat). Under this NPRM, a CRS that is marketed for use as a beltpositioning seat for children in a weight range that includes children weighing less than 18 kg (40 lb) would be tested in the belt-positioning ‘‘mode’’ to the side impact requirements. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure of the child.’’ NHTSA tentatively believes that harnesses should be excluded because of practicability concerns about the ability of the harness to meet the proposed requirements and because harnesses serve a need in certain populations. Harnesses would likely not be able to meet the proposed performance requirements because they do not have a side structure that can be reinforced and/or padded to mitigate forces on the Q3s in the side test. At the same time, we recognize that there is a niche served by harnesses on certain school buses and special needs buses, one whose needs cannot be met by any other type of CRS. In addition, the side impact crash environment of a school bus is significantly different from that simulated by the proposed sled test procedure (which simulates a near-side impact of a small passenger car). Accordingly, we propose excluding harnesses from the proposed side impact requirements. Car beds would also be excluded from the proposed requirements. Car beds do not ‘‘seat’’ children but instead restrain or position a child in a supine or prone position on a continuous flat surface. FMVSS No. 213 requires manufacturers of car beds to provide instructions stating that the car bed should be positioned in the vehicle such that the child’s head is near the center of the vehicle. We believe that, due to the supine position and location of the head of the child, the risk of injury and the injury patterns of children in car beds are much different from those of children seated forward- or rear-facing. There is no accident data available that show that benefits would accrue from applying the proposed side impact protection standard to car beds. VII. Real World Analysis The motor vehicle occupant fatality rate among children 4 YO and younger has declined from 4.5 in 1975 to 1.54 in 2009 (per 100,000 occupants). This decline in fatality rate is partially attributed to increased use of child restraint systems. The 2009 NSUBS found that most (92 percent) children 0 to 7 YO were riding in the rear seats of vehicles and were restrained in CRSs (98 percent of 0 to 1 YO children, 93 percent of 1 to 3 YO children, and 55 percent of 4 to 7 YO children).34 According to the 2009 FARS data files, there were 33,808 persons killed in 34 Tony Jianquiang Ye and Timothy Pickrell, NHTSA, DOT HS 811 377, September 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 motor vehicle crashes in 2009, 322 of whom were children aged 4 and younger killed in passenger vehicle crashes. Among the 322 child occupant fatalities, 92 (29 percent) were unrestrained, 27 (8 percent) were restrained by vehicle seat belts, 178 (55 percent) were restrained in CRSs, and 25 (8 percent) had unknown restraint use.35 In 1996, the agency estimated the effectiveness of CRSs and found the devices to reduce fatalities by 71 percent for children younger than 1 YO and by 54 percent for toddlers 1 to 4 YO in passenger vehicles.36 For today’s NPRM, the agency updated the 1996 effectiveness estimates by conducting a similar analysis using the FARS data files for the years 1995–2009.37 In the updated analysis,38 only non-rollover frontal and side crashes of passenger cars and LTVs were considered. (CRS effectiveness was estimated for each crash mode. Due to small sample size of unrestrained children less than 1 YO, the 0 to 1 YO age group was combined with the 1 to 3 YO age group for determining CRS effectiveness for each crash mode.) The results indicate that in non-rollover frontal crashes, CRSs currently in use are 53 percent effective in preventing fatalities among children 0 to 3 YO and 43 percent effective among children 4 to 7 YO. In nonrollover side crashes, CRSs currently in use are 42 percent effective in preventing fatalities among 0 to 3 YO and 51 percent effective among 4 to 7 YO children. The agency estimates that the lives of 284 children 4 YO and younger were saved in 2009 due to the use of child restraint systems. At 100 percent use of child restraint systems for children 0 to 4 YO, an estimated 372 lives would have been saved in 2009.39 This estimate accounts for consumers’ realworld use of child restraints, i.e., these lives would be saved even when the CRSs are misused. Failure to use proper occupant restraints is a significant factor in a large number of child occupant fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes. In 35 Children, Traffic Safety Facts—2009 data, DOT HS 811 387, NHTSA, https://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811387.pdf, last accessed August 9, 2012. 36 ‘‘Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness,’’ Research Note, supra. 37 Details of the analysis method are provided in the supporting technical document in the docket for this NPRM. 38 Details of the updated analysis are provided in the supporting technical document in the docket for this NPRM. 39 Tony Jianquiang Ye and Timothy Pickrell, Child Restraint use in 2009—Overall Results, NHTSA, DOT HS 811 377, September 2010. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4577 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules addition, fatalities among children properly restrained in child restraints are often attributed to the severity of the crash. Sherwood 40 examined the FARS database for the year 2000 and determined that there were 621 child occupant fatalities in the age range of 0 to 5 years. Among these 621 fatalities, 143 (23 percent) children were reported to be in child restraints. Detailed police reports were available for 92 of the 143 fatally injured children restrained in CRSs. Sherwood examined these 92 police reports and determined that half of the 92 fatalities were in un-survivable agency (FARS and the National Automotive Sampling SystemCrashworthiness Data System (NASS– CDS)) for the years 2005–2009 to better understand fatalities to children restrained in child restraints when involved in side crashes. First, we categorized the crash cases involving children (0 to 12 YO) seated in rear seating positions, by restraint use, crash type, and child age. See Tables 5 and 6, below. crashes, 12 percent of the fatalities were judged to result from gross misuse of child restraints, 16 percent in noncatastrophic side impacts, and 13 percent in non-catastrophic frontal impacts. Sherwood noted that side impacts accounted for the largest number of fatalities (40 percent), and in all side impact crashes involving child fatalities, there was vehicle intrusion at the child’s seating position. In-Depth Study of Fatalities Among Child Occupants The agency further examined the real world crash databases managed by the TABLE 5—AVERAGE ANNUAL CRASH FATALITIES AMONG CHILDREN 0 TO 12 YO IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES CATEGORIZED BY RESTRAINT TYPE AND AGE [FARS 2005–2009] Age (years) Restraint Total Under 1 1–3 4–7 8–12 None ........................................................................................................ Adult Belt ................................................................................................. CRS ......................................................................................................... Unknown .................................................................................................. 13.4 1.8 55.8 2.8 39.8 11.6 106 6.6 68 57.4 54.2 12.8 91.6 78.2 4.4 14.6 212.8 149 220.4 36.8 Total .................................................................................................. 73.8 164 192.4 188.6 619 Annually, there were 619 crash fatalities among children 0 to 12 YO seated in rear seating positions of light vehicles. Among these fatalities, 220 (36 percent) were to children restrained in CRSs (162 were 0 to 3 YO and 58 were 4 to 12 YO). Nearly three-quarters of the CRS restrained child fatalities were to children 0 to 3 YO. As shown in the last column of Table 6, among the 220 fatalities of children 0 to 12 YO restrained in rear seats of light passenger vehicles and in CRSs, approximately 32 percent occurred in frontal crashes, 31 percent in side crashes, 25 percent in rollovers, and 11 percent in rear crashes. Approximately 60 percent of side impact fatalities (41/ 68.4) were in near-side impacts. (‘‘Farside’’ position means the outboard seating position on the opposite side of the point of impact.) TABLE 6—AVERAGE ANNUAL CRASH FATALITIES AMONG CHILDREN 0 TO 12 YO IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES AND RESTRAINED IN CRSS BY CRASH MODE AND AGE [FARS 2005–2009] Age (years) Crash mode 1–3 Rollover ........................................ Front ............................................. Side .............................................. Near-side .............................. Far-side ................................. Rear ............................................. 13.8 16 17.4 10.6 6.8 8.6 Total ...................................... ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Percent total Total <1 55.8 4–7 26.4 35.6 34.8 20 14.8 9.2 8–12 13.4 19.8 15 9.6 5.4 6 55 72.4 68.4 41 27.4 24.6 54.2 106 1.4 1 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.8 4.4 220.4 25 32 31 18.6 12.4 11 100 Of the side impact crash fatalities among CRS restrained children 0 to 12 YO in rear seating positions, three quarters of near side fatalities (30.6/41) were to children under the age of 4. In-Depth Study of Injuries to Child Occupants in Motor Vehicle Crashes In 2010, the agency published an analysis of the NASS—General Estimates System (GES) data for the years 1999–2008 to better understand injuries to children in motor vehicle traffic crashes.41 The analysis was conducted for three different child age groups (<1 YO, 1 to 3 YO, and 4 to 7 YO) and for different crash modes (rollover, front, side, and rear). The 40 Sherwood, C.P., Ferguson, S.A., Crandall, J.R., ‘‘Factors Leading to Crash Fatalities to Children in Child Restraints,’’ 47th Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), September 2003. 41 Hanna, R., ‘‘Children Injured in Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes,’’ DOT HS 811 325, NHTSA, May 2010, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/ 811325.pdf, last accessed on July 2, 2012. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules analysis indicated that CRSs are effective in reducing incapacitating injuries in all three child age groups examined and in all four crash modes. The analysis found that rollover crashes accounted for the highest rate of incapacitating injuries, with the incidence rate among unrestrained children (26 percent) being nearly 3 times that for children restrained in CRSs (9 percent). In near-side impact crashes, unrestrained children (incidence rate = 8 percent) were 8 times more likely to sustain incapacitating injuries than children in CRSs (incidence rate = 1 percent). In support of the NPRM, the agency analyzed NASS–CDS for the years 1995–2009 to obtain annual estimates of moderate or higher severity injuries (AIS 2+ injuries) among children of different ages in different restraint environment and crash modes. See Table 7 and 8. TABLE 7—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0 TO 12 YO CHILDREN WITH AIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY RESTRAINT TYPE [NASS–CDS 1995–2009] Age (years) Restraint Percent total Total Under 1 1–3 4–7 8–12 None ....................................................... Adult Belt ................................................ CRS ........................................................ Unknown if used .................................... 26 0 164 1 174 93 883 32 765 722 422 215 969 1550 16 66 1934 2365 1485 314 Total ................................................ 191 1182 2124 2601 6098 Annually, there were, on average, approximately 6,100 AIS 2+ injuries to children 12 YO and younger seated in the rear seats of light passenger vehicles with 1,373 of these injured occupants being younger than 4 YO. Approximately 1,485 CRS restrained children 12 YO and younger sustained AIS 2+injuries, among which 1,047 (71 percent) were children younger than 4 YO and 422 (28 percent) were 4 to 7 YO children. The NASS–CDS data files for the years 1995–2009 were further analyzed to determine crash characteristics. Table 31.7 38.7 24.3 5.1 100 8 presents the average annual estimates of 0 to12 YO children with AIS 2+ injuries in rear seating positions of light passenger vehicles. Thirty-one percent of the children were injured in side crashes, 40 percent in frontal crashes, and 23 percent in rollover crashes. TABLE 8—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0 TO 12 YO CHILDREN WITH AIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH MODE [NASS–CDS 1995–2009] Age (years) Rollover status, damage type Percent of known Total <1 1–3 4–7 8–12 Rollover .................................................... Front ......................................................... Side .......................................................... Near-Side .......................................... Far-Side ............................................ Rear ......................................................... Other ........................................................ 38 103 34 24 10 17 0 278 356 371 280 91 139 36 372 777 893 464 429 82 0 704 1138 652 438 214 106 1 1,392 2,374 1950 1,209 741 344 37 23 40 31 19 12 6 1 Total .................................................. 192 1,180 2,124 2,601 6,097 100 To better understand the crash characteristics of children restrained in child restraints, a similar analysis as that shown in Table 8 was conducted except that only the cases where the children were restrained in CRSs were included in the analysis. The results are presented in Table 9. TABLE 9—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0 TO 12 YO CRS RESTRAINED CHILDREN WITH AIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH MODE [NASS–CDS 1995–2009] ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Age (years) Crash mode Total Under 1 Rollover ................................................................................ Front ..................................................................................... Side ...................................................................................... Near-side ...................................................................... Far-side ......................................................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 1–3 28 94 31 22 9 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4–7 148 310 307 253 54 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 8–12 44 214 137 44 93 28JAP3 0 16 0 0 0 220 634 475 319 156 4579 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules TABLE 9—AVERAGE ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF 0 TO 12 YO CRS RESTRAINED CHILDREN WITH AIS 2+ INJURIES IN REAR SEATING POSITIONS OF LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BY CRASH MODE— Continued [NASS–CDS 1995–2009] Age (years) Crash mode Total Under 1 1–3 4–7 8–12 Rear ..................................................................................... 12 98 26 0 136 Total .............................................................................. 165 863 421 16 1465 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 For AIS 2+ injured 12 YO and younger child occupants in passenger vehicles restrained in CRSs in rear seating positions, 15 percent of the injuries were in rollover events, 43 percent in frontal crashes, 33 percent in side crashes, and 9 percent in rear crashes. Sixty-seven percent (319/475) of the occupants in side crashes were in near-side impacts. In the above analyses some of these injuries and fatalities involved children in seats that were incorrectly used. However, we do not have complete data on the number accidents that involved misuse because accident databases do not generally collect data on how child restraints were used. VIII. Past NHTSA Efforts In the past, NHTSA has explored the possibility of side impact requirements for child restraints in FMVSS No. 213. When NHTSA first considered dynamic testing of child restraints (39 FR 7959; March 1, 1974), the agency proposed a 90 degree lateral impact simulating a 32 km/h (20 mph) crash. NHTSA proposed that each CRS would have to retain the test dummy within the system, limit head motion to 483 mm (19 inches (in)) in each lateral direction measured from the exterior surface of the dummy’s head, and suffer no loss of structural integrity. NHTSA withdrew the proposal after testing a number of restraints at a speed of 32 km/h (20 mph) and at a horizontal angle of 60 degrees from the direction of the test platform travel. The tests found that for outboard seating positions, only one of those restraints—one that required a tether—could meet the lateral head excursion limits that had been proposed. This was of concern because tethers were widely unused at that time. Further, the agency found that some restraints with impact shields, which, the agency stated, performed well in frontal crashes and which were rarely misused, could not pass the lateral test even when placed in the center seating position. The agency decided not to pursue lateral testing of child restraints given the cost of the design changes that VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 would have been necessary to meet the lateral test, the problems with misuse of tethers, and the possible price sensitivity of child restraint sales. (43 FR 21470, 21474; May 18, 1978.) In 2002, in response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act (‘‘TREAD Act’’) (Pub. L. 106–414, 114 Stat. 1800), NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to request comments on the agency’s work in developing a possible side impact protection requirement for CRSs (67 FR 21836, May 1, 2002). Information indicated that child head injury was prevalent in side crashes. However, the agency was not able to confirm whether the majority of injuries and fatalities occur primarily due to direct head contact with the vehicle interior or other objects in the vehicle, or whether these injuries and fatalities are a result of non-contact, inertial loading on the head and neck structure. Due to these unknowns about head injury causation, the agency considered two side impact performance tests for child restraints. The tests were modeled after the simulated side impact test administered by the New South Wales, Australia, Roads and Traffic Authority (discussed in the next section). In one test, the CRS had to limit head excursion and HIC 42 when oriented at 90 degrees to the direction of sled travel. In the second test developed by NHTSA, a rigid structure, representing the side of the vehicle’s interior side structure, was positioned adjacent to the child restraint. Limits on HIC, chest acceleration, a neck injury criterion and chest deflection were considered. The ANPRM requested information on the following areas: (a) Determination of child injury mechanisms in side impacts, and crash characteristics associated with serious and fatal injuries to children in child restraints; (b) development of test procedures, a suitable test dummy and appropriate injury criteria; and (c) 42 Head PO 00000 injury criterion. Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 identification of cost beneficial countermeasures. The agency received approximately 17 comments on the ANPRM. Commenters supported enhancing child passenger protection in side impacts, but were concerned about the uncertainties with respect to the three areas highlighted above. A number of commenters believed that a dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle intrusion into the occupant compartment. NHTSA withdrew the ANPRM after considering the comments on the ANPRM and other information. The agency found that for side crashes: (a) Data were not widely available as to how children are being injured and killed in side impacts (e.g., to what degree injuries were caused by intrusion of an impacting vehicle or other object); (b) there was not a consensus on an appropriate child test dummy and associated injury criteria for side impact testing; and, (c) potential countermeasures for side impact intrusion were not identified. NHTSA determined that an NPRM was not feasible given unknowns about side crashes involving children in CRSs and the time constraints of the TREAD Act. IX. Side Impact Program Developments Notwithstanding the ANPRM’s withdrawal, NHTSA continued research into improved side impact protection requirements for child restraints. As discussed in this section, the state of knowledge about side crashes and CRS-restrained children is considerably greater now than it was in 2002. Information about how restrained children are being injured and killed in side crashes has become increasingly available in recent years. In addition, the agency has continued to evaluate test parameters and potential methodologies to replicate a representative side impact scenario that could potentially be developed into a dynamic side impact test procedure. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules a. Side Impact Environment for Children Sherwood 43 analyzed fatalities of children under 5 years of age and found that even in survivable crashes there was intrusion into the interior space occupied by the child. Arbogast 44 found intrusion to be an important causative factor for moderate/serious injury and suggested that side impact test procedures include intrusion into the occupant space. Howard 45 found that struck side child passengers sustained severe head, torso and extremity injuries, many of them attributable to direct intrusion. Sherwood also found that most side crashes had a longitudinal crash component and recommended that child restraints be designed to take into account both longitudinal and lateral components of the direction of force in a side crash. This finding accords with that found by NHTSA while developing FMVSS No. 214 (55 FR 45733), where data showed that during most side impact crashes, the struck vehicle is traveling forward while being struck on the side. Nagabhushana 46 noted that vehicle crashes involving child occupants most often had a principal direction of force of 2 o’clock (60 degrees) or 10 o’clock (300 degrees). Nagabhushana also found that the average change in velocity in side crashes involving children 1 to 3 YO (in crashes where the child was positioned near-side, on the struck side of the vehicle) was 23 km/h (14 mph). NHTSA examined NASS–CDS data files for the years 1995–2009 for side impact crashes of light vehicles and found that 92 percent of near-side crashes to restrained children (0 to 12 YO) had a change in velocity of 30 km/h (19 mph) or lower. This change in velocity is approximately equal to that experienced by a light vehicle in a FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact test. This 92 percent is of all near side crashes involving restrained children 0–12 years old. These near-side crashes were not only fatal crashes, but also included those where occupants were not injured or sustained non-fatal injuries. b. Injury Mechanisms in Side Impact McCray (2007) 47 analyzed the NASS– CDS and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) data files for the years 1995–2005 to better understand injuries to children 1 to 3 YO in side impact crashes. The study found that children restrained in CRSs exhibited more head injuries (59 percent) than torso injuries (22 percent) and injuries to extremities (14 percent). Children in near-side crashes tended to suffer more severe injuries than those in far-side crashes. Arbogast (2004) 48 queried the Partners for Child Passenger Safety Study (PCPS) data collected from December 1, 1998 to November 30, 2002 and found that the risk of injury (AIS 2+: moderate or greater severity) for children restrained in CRSs in near-side impact crashes was significantly higher (8.9 injured children per 1,000 crashes) than those in far-side 49 impact crashes (2.1 injured children per 1,000 crashes) and those in frontal crashes (2.7 injured children per 1,000 crashes). NHTSA analyzed NASS–CDS average annual estimates (1995–2009) for AIS 2+ injuries to children 0 to 12 YO in rear seats. The most common AIS 2+ injuries among restrained children in near-side impacts were to the head and face (55 percent), torso (chest and abdomen—29 percent), upper and lower extremities (13 percent). The most common injury contacts for AIS 2+ injuries were the side interior (33 percent), the front seat back (11.12 percent) and the CRS (9 percent).50 Arbogast (2010) 51 examined two indepth crash investigation databases (CIREN and the PCPS) for rear-seated CRS-restrained children in side impact crashes who sustained AIS 2+ injuries. Arbogast found that among the 41 cases examined, 28 children sustained head injuries and 9 sustained thoracic injuries (lung contusions without rib fractures). In general, head and thorax 47 McCray, ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 43 Sherwood, et al., 2003, supra. 44 Arbogast, K.B., Chen, I., Durbin, D.R., and Winston, F.K., ‘‘Injury Risks for Children in Child Restraint Systems in Side Impact Crashes,’’ International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, October 2004. 45 Howard, A., Rothman, L., Moses McKeag, A., Pazmino-Canizares, J., Monk, B., Comeau, J.L., Mills, D., Blazeski, S., Hale, I., and German, A., ‘‘Children in Side-Impact Motor Vehicle Crashes: Seating Positions and Injury Mechanisms,’’ The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 1276–1285, 2004. 46 Nagabhushana, V., Morgan, R., Kan, C., Park, J., Kuznetsov, A., ‘‘Impact Risk for 1–3 Year-Old Children on the Struck Side in a Lateral crash,’’ DOT HS 810 699, April 2007. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 et al., 2007, supra. et al., 2004, supra. 49 Far-side impacts are side impact crashes where the occupant is seated away from the struck-side of the vehicle (center seating position or opposite the struck-side of the vehicle). 50 In comparison, data showed that the most common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained in frontal impacts were to the head and face (42 percent), torso (chest and abdomen—27 percent), and upper and lower extremities (25 percent). The most common injury contacts for AIS 2+ injuries were the seat back support (50 percent) and the belt webbing or buckle (19 percent). 51 Arbogast, K.B., Locey, C.M., Zonfrillo, M.R., Maltese, M.R., ‘‘Protection of Children Restrained in Child Safety Seats in Side Impact Crashes,’’ Journal of Trauma, 2010, October, 69(4): 913–23. 48 Arbogast, PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 injuries were due to contact with the CRS structure or the door interior. For near- and center-seated occupants, the head and face were the most common body regions of injury, followed by the thorax. For far-side occupants, there were fewer injuries and there was no clear pattern of body region. c. Global Dynamic Side Impact Tests Globally, several organizations have developed or continued work on side impact test procedures for child restraints. • Australia and New Zealand’s dynamic side impact test procedure (AS/NZS 1754 Revision 2004) specifies two different side impact tests. The first test simulates a far-side crash, in which a bench seat with a CRS attached to it is mounted on a sled at a 90 degree orientation and is subjected to lateral acceleration representative of that in a side impact vehicle crash. The second test simulates a near-side crash, incorporating a bench seat mounted at 90 degrees on the sled along with a fixed door mounted at the front of the sled adjacent to the bench seat. The sled is calibrated to undergo a velocity change of not less than 32 km/h (20 mph), with a deceleration of 14–20 g. Pseries dummies developed by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) are used to test forward-facing seats and boosters, and the TNO P-series and the TARU Theresa dummy are used for infant rearfacing restraints. The AS/NZS 1754 regulation specifies that the child restraints shall not allow any head contact with any part of the test door. (The P-series ATDs are frontal impact test dummies. They were not specially designed for use in side impacts. The TARU Theresa dummy represents a 6week-old infant and is an uninstrumented dummy with a weight of only 4 kg (9 lb).) • Australia’s consumer information program rates the performance of CRSs in side impacts through the ‘‘Child Restraint Evaluation Program’’ (CREP). The test procedure is similar to AS/NZS 1754. CREP utilizes two side impact tests for its CRS rating system; one test is at a 90 degree impact and the other is at a 66 degree 52 impact, both with a fixed door structure in place. The velocity of the sled is 32 km/h (20 mph) and its peak deceleration is 17 g. CREP rates the child restraint system in the side impact test based on child restraint durability and structural integrity, dummy retention in the CRS, and head excursion and contact with the wall. 52 Previously E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 this was a 45 degree impact. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 • Germany’s Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC) adopted a consumer information rating program. The procedure uses a body-in-white of a VW Golf or Opel Astra. The body-inwhite 53 structure is mounted on a sled at an 80 degree angle. The vehicle door does not intrude into the passenger area; the door is welded shut and covered with foam creating a flat door. The sled is decelerated from an initial velocity of 25 km/h (16 mph) with an 18 g acceleration pulse. This test method is used to determine ADAC star ratings based on head containment, head acceleration, chest acceleration, neck moment and neck force of the Q series dummies and the P10 (P-series, 10 YO child dummy) for booster seats. • The International Standards Organization (ISO) and TNO have continued to work on developing a side impact test which uses a rotating hinged door to simulate door intrusion into the CRS.54 • The World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) of the European Union (EU) approved Phase I (total of 3 phases) of a new regulation on child restraint systems in November 2012, which includes a side impact test procedure.55 The test procedure is currently only intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX anchorages.56 The regulation’s test procedure consists of a fixed flat 53 Body-in-white refers to a stage of automobile manufacturing in which the car body sheet metal has been welded and assembled but before the motor and chassis assemblies have been added. 54 Johannsen, H., et al., ‘‘Review of the Development of the ISO Side Impact Test Procedure for Child Restraint Systems,’’ 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 07–0241, Lyon, France, 2007. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/070241-W30.pdf. Last accessed May 3, 2012. 55 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/ doc/2012/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP29-2012-53e.pdf. 56 The ISOFIX concept originated as a 4-point rigid system, where four sturdy braces are mounted on the bottom of a child restraint. Each brace has a latch at its end. Two of the latches connect, through holes at the vehicle seat bight, to a metal bar in the seat frame. The other two latches, at the bottom braces, connect to a bar below the vehicle seat cushion. Alternatives to the concept 4-point ISO system have been developed, including a system that consists of the CRS having two rigid rear braces at the seat bight (rather than the 4 points of the original ISOFIX). Some ISOFIX concepts have included an upper tether, some have included a support leg (see next footnote, below). FMVSS No. 225’s ‘‘LATCH’’ system grew out of the ISOFIX concept, as the lower bars of the LATCH system are similar to the seat frame bar at the seat bight in ISOFIX. LATCH requires the CRS to have components that attach to the vehicle’s lower bars, but LATCH does not require the components to be rigidly attached to the CRS as on a brace. The components may be attached to the CRS by webbing material. Because of these differences, a test designed for ISOFIX systems is generally not appropriate for testing LATCH systems, and vice versa. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 door on a sled that intrudes into a CRS secured on a bench seat using the ISOFIX anchorages. The relative velocity between the door and the bench seat at time of impact is approximately 25 km/h (16 mph). The impact is purely lateral with no longitudinal door velocity component. The ISOFIX anchorages on the test bench are allowed to slide along the seat up to 250 mm to avoid damage of the attachments and the test equipment. The CRSs are tested using the Q-series newborn, 1 YO, 11⁄2 YO, and 3 YO child dummies in accordance with manufacturers’ recommended size of child for the CRS. Injury criteria include head containment (no contact of the head with the door panel), head acceleration, and a head injury criterion. • European authorities are developing a new consumer program, ‘‘New Programme for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems (NPACS),’’ 57 to create a harmonized program for the evaluation of ISOFIX universal and ISOFIX semi-universal 58 child restraints. This rating program would include a side impact test for CRSs and will utilize ATDs. Details of the test procedure are not available at this time, but it is the agency’s understanding that, although the eventual test procedure may share some aspects with the recent ECE regulation, it will likely not be based on the same test method. • Takata developed a sled test buck for testing child restraints in a side impact environment. The buck has two moving fixtures: The sled buck itself and the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat on which the child restraint is attached. The sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat is mounted to a rail system, along with a ‘‘side door’’ structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck structure. The details of this test procedure are described more fully in section IX. 57 NPACS is similar to NHTSA’s (and the general European) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), in that it is a voluntary consumer information program, rather than a binding regulation. The difference is that NPACS is being designed to test the CRS itself, while NCAP focuses on how the vehicle performs. 58 ISOFIX universal CRS means forward-facing restraints for use in vehicles with positions equipped with ISOFIX anchorages and a top tether anchorage. ISOFIX semi-universal CRS means: (a) A forward-facing restraint equipped with a support leg; (b) a rearward facing restraint equipped with a support leg or a top tether strap for use in vehicles with positions equipped with an ISOFIX anchorage system and a top tether anchorage if needed; (c) a rearward facing restraint, supported by the vehicle dashboard, for use in the front passenger seat equipped with an ISOFIX anchorage system; or (d) a lateral facing position restraint equipped, if needed, with an anti-rotation device for use in vehicles with positions equipped with an ISOFIX anchorage system and a top tether anchorage, if needed. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4581 d. Side Impact Test Dummy The development of a speciallydesigned child side impact test dummy, the Q3s, has provided an important tool for evaluating CRSs in side impact. The Q3s is built on the platform of the standard Q3 dummy series (the Q-series are frontal ATDs used in Europe), but the Q3s has enhanced lateral biofidelity, durability and additional instrumentation for specialized use in side impact testing. The Q3s is more fully discussed in the 49 CFR Part 572 NPRM. X. Developing NHTSA’s Side Impact Test The state of knowledge and the practicability of measures that can be taken to improve side impact protection are now sufficient for NHTSA to propose a reasonable and realistic side impact test for incorporation into FMVSS No. 213. Based on the information that has become available since the 2002 ANPRM, we tentatively conclude that a side impact is best replicated if the test procedure reflects and replicates dynamic elements of both the striking and struck vehicle in a vehicle-tovehicle crash. We believe that a side impact test procedure should account for: (1) The struck vehicle door velocity prior to the interaction of the striking vehicle with the door sill of the struck vehicle, (2) the acceleration profile of the struck vehicle, and (3) the impact angle to replicate the longitudinal component of the direction of force. Specification of these parameters, based on actual vehicle crash characteristics, would enable the realistic simulation of the relative velocity between the intruding door and the CRS. Selection of these parameters is consistent with the findings from other researchers (see Side Impact Environment for Children, section IX, supra) that found the change in velocity, the level of door intrusion, and the impact angle to be significant factors of near-side impact crashes involving children. In addition, the test bench and door geometry and vehicle seat and door padding characteristics are important in a side impact test, to ensure these are representative of the vehicle rear seat environment. a. Assessment of Existing Global Efforts In order to build on existing efforts, NHTSA reviewed the above procedures and regulations developed globally that dynamically test child restraints in the side impact environment. Except for the Takata test procedure, the procedures and regulations did not replicate all of E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 the dynamic elements of a side crash that we sought to include in the side impact test or were not sufficiently developed for further consideration. NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213 but has not proposed it, mainly because the procedure does not simulate the intruding door, which we believe is an important component in the side impact environment. In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not account for a longitudinal component, which we also believe to be an important characteristic of a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA’s 2002 ANPRM, supra, was based on AS/NZS 1754. Commenters to the ANPRM believed that a dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle intrusion into the occupant compartment.) Australia’s CREP test also was limited by its lack of an intruding door, which is a component that is important in the side impact environment. Germany’s ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. Further, the vehicles represented by the body-in-white in Germany’s ADAC test procedure are limited, and do not represent the range of vehicles in the U.S. fleet that we would like to have represented in our side impact test to safeguard child passengers in the U.S. While the ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and intrusion experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its limitations is that the angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control, which reportedly results in poor repeatability.59 In addition, this test procedure does not include a longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which is present in most side impacts and which, we believe, should be replicated in the FMVSS No. 213 test. The EU’s test procedure did not appear appropriate since the test is of lower severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test of a small passenger vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX 59 Sandner, V., et al., ‘‘New Programm for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems (NPACS)— Development/Research/Results—First Step for Future Activities?,’’ 21st International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 09–0298, 2009. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/ esv/esv21/09-0298.pdf. Last accessed on June 11, 2012. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 attachments, which are not available on CRSs in the U.S., and, due to the differences in to the two systems discussed above, a test designed for one type of system will not produce useful results for testing the other system. Further, the test procedure does not seem to produce a representative interaction between the door and CRS during a side impact. The NHTSAdeveloped test procedure replicates a real-world T-bone type intersection collision, involving two moving vehicles, with door intrusion. In contrast, the European test with the sliding ISO anchorages is a purely lateral impact (stationary vehicle impacted laterally by another vehicle) and it does not correctly represent the door intrusion and door to child restraint interaction in real world side crashes, In addition, the sliding anchors in the European test allow for the child restraint to slide away from the impacting door, which also causes the European test be less reflective of a realworld crash than the test proposed in today’s NPRM. The European test is likewise sensitive to the friction of the sliding anchorages, which may introduce variability in the test results.60 Finally, the European procedure uses the Q series dummies, which are frontal crash dummies. NHTSA evaluated the Q3 dummy and has tentatively concluded that the Q3 dummy does not have adequate biofidelity in lateral impact, in contrast to the Q3s dummy we propose, which is designed for side impacts. The NPACS consumer program for side impact is still undergoing development and the details of the sled test procedure and dummies are not available. b. Takata Test Procedure In 2007, the agency began evaluating the Takata sled test procedure for evaluating child restraints in side impact.61 The test procedure demonstrated versatility for tuning 60 Hynd, et al., ‘‘Analysis for the development of legislation on child occupant protection,’’ TRL, July 2010. 61 Takata made a presentation on its side impact test procedure during a February 8, 2007 NHTSA public meeting. The meeting concerned: Improving LATCH, CRS side impact safety, and LATCH education. See meeting notice, 72 FR 3103, January 24, 2007, Docket No. NHTSA–2007–26833. NHTSA also published two papers on the agency’s research and testing on the Takata test procedure. See Sullivan 2009 and Sullivan 2011, infra. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 parameters to obtain the desired test environment. NHTSA could tune the parameters to simulate the two-vehicle side crash replicated in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214 (striking vehicle traveling at 48 km/h (30 mph) impacting the struck vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph), which accounts for approximately 92 percent of near-side crashes involving restrained children (0 to 12 YO children in all restraint environments—seat belts and CRSs). The procedure includes an intruding door and can simulate the relative velocity between the CRS and the intruding door. It can also be easily modified to change the impact angle to introduce a longitudinal component present in the FMVSS No. 214 tests. In its preliminary evaluation of the Takata test protocol, after making minor modification to the test parameters,62 NHTSA determined that the test procedure was repeatable and was able to provide results that distinguished between the performance of various CRS models based on the design of the side wings and stiffness of the CRS padding.63 The Takata procedure is based on an acceleration sled with a test buck consisting of a sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat mounted to a rail system, along with a ‘‘side door’’ structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck structure. The vehicle seat and side door are representative of today’s passenger vehicles. Aluminum honeycomb is mounted below the side door structure. The sliding vehicle seat is positioned sufficiently away from the side door to allow the sled to reach a desired velocity prior to the sliding vehicle seat coming into contact with the side door and aluminum honeycomb. The purpose of the design is for the side door structure to impact the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat at a specified speed, at which time the aluminum honeycomb begins to crush. The door contacts the CRS about the same time as the honeycomb contacts the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat. The honeycomb characteristics are selected such that the desired sliding seat acceleration is achieved. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 1 below. 62 Sullivan, 2009, supra. et al., ‘‘NHTSA’s Evaluation of a Potential Child Side Impact Test Procedures,’’ 22nd International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 2011–0227 (2011). 63 Sullivan E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 After considering the Takata test procedure, NHTSA selected the test method as a basis for developing a side VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 impact test for evaluating CRS performance. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4583 XI. The Proposed Test Procedure As shown above, the proposed test buck consists of a sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat and ‘‘side door’’ rigidly mounted to the E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.000</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules angle of the door with the sliding seat (to replicate the longitudinal component of the direction of force). NHTSA selected and analyzed several FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of small passenger vehicles to determine the test parameters and test corridors representative of the target crash environment. The agency determined that a small passenger vehicle in an FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test experiences a lateral change in velocity of about 30 km/h (18.6 mph). This change in velocity is greater than 92 percent of near-side impact real-world crashes involving restrained children 0 to 12 YO in light vehicles, as estimated by NHTSA using the NASS–CDS datafiles. In order to ensure that the side impact test would be sufficiently stringent to account for the greater acceleration and intrusion experienced by smaller vehicles, the agency focused on the crash characteristics of small passenger vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 To obtain a target acceleration pulse for the sliding seat that represents the motion of the struck vehicle, the right rear sill (the opposite side of impact) lateral (Y-axis) acceleration of ten small vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 tests were analyzed.64 The right rear sill accelerations were averaged to derive a typical struck vehicle acceleration corridor for small sized vehicles. Figure 2 shows the upper and lower boundaries of the rear sill accelerations in thick solid black lines while the dotted line represents the average of the accelerations. The solid thin black line in Figure 2 is a representative sliding seat acceleration pulse. To obtain the sliding seat velocity (representing the motion of the struck vehicle), the right rear sill lateral (Yaxis) accelerations of the ten small vehicles were integrated to calculate the velocity. The results showed a change in velocity of approximately 26 to 29 km/h (16 to 18 mph). acceleration data from four of the ten previously selected FMVSS No. 214 compliance tests (only these four vehicles were tested with accelerometers installed on the door).65 The resulting lateral (Y-axis) peak velocities of the door during interaction with the test dummy ranged from 30 km/h (18.6 mph) at the upper centerline to 32.0 km/h (20 mph) at the midcenterline. Thus, the target lateral door velocity selected for the test buck was 31 km/h (19.3 mph). Since the kinematics of the door prior to the interaction with the sliding seat do not affect the energy and impulse imparted to the sliding seat and child restraint system, the acceleration profile of the impacting door need not be specified as long as its velocity during the interaction with the sliding seat and child restraint system is maintained within specified velocity tolerances. The door velocity should be 31 km/h (19.3 mph) prior to the honeycomb contacting the sliding seat structure. 2. Door Velocity The door velocity (which represents the struck vehicle door velocity), was obtained from the integration of door 64 Sullivan et al., 2009. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 side MDB tests, as opposed to the average estimates from all vehicles. a. Sled Kinematic Parameters 1. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile (Representing the Struck Vehicle) 65 Id. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.001</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 acceleration sled buck structure. Aluminum honeycomb is mounted below the side door structure. The side door is made to reach a desired velocity prior to the aluminum honeycomb coming into contact with the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat structure. The parameters of the test buck and the honeycomb could be tuned to simulate the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. The agency examined data from FMVSS No. 214 MDB compliance tests to identify kinematic characteristics of the vehicle test that should be replicated in the sled test environment so that the latter is representative of the crash experience of a child restrained in a CRS in the rear seat. The following sled kinematic parameters were identified: (1) The acceleration profile of the sliding seat (representing the struck vehicle acceleration); (2) the door velocity at time of contact with the sliding seat (this represents the struck vehicle door velocity; and (3) the impact Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4585 impact velocity of the 31 km/h (19.3 mph) in the direction of the sliding seat motion and a sliding seat acceleration profile shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the average (dotted line) and the upper and lower boundaries (solid lines) of the velocity profile for the door relative to the sliding seat in sled tests performed during the development of the test procedure. The upper and lower boundaries of the relative door velocity represent the maximum and minimum values of the cluster of relative door velocity profiles in these sled tests. Today’s NPRM only proposes an acceleration profile for the sliding seat and a door impact velocity but does not propose a relative door velocity profile so as not to over specify the test environment. However, a door velocity profile with respect to the sliding seat may be desirable to ensure reproducible interaction of the intruding door with the child restraint in different types of sled systems. We are requesting comments on the need for specifying a relative door velocity profile to improve reproducibility of the test procedure. Depending on whether we receive information sufficiently supporting such a velocity profile, we may include one in the final rule. directions were integrated to obtain the X and Y vehicle velocities. These velocities were used to calculate the angle of the resultant deceleration with respect to the lateral axis of the vehicle during the crash event.66 The time period of interest was determined to be 5 to 60 ms, because this represents the typical time from initial motion of the struck vehicle through peak loading on the near-side occupant. A reference frame was used in which a pure left-to-right lateral impact was zero degrees and a pure frontal impact was 90 degrees. The mean angles over the time period of interest for the ten vehicles ranged from 4 to 15 degrees, while the angle at any specific time ranged from ¥8 to 22 degrees across the ten vehicles. From these ranges, the agency decided to perform tests within a range of 0 to 20 degrees. These tests (at 0, 10, 15 and 20 degrees) were performed in an effort to evaluate the effect of the test buck’s impact angle on dummy kinematics and injury responses. Based on the tests and on the average impact angle computed from the vehicle right rear sill velocities of MDBto-vehicle crash tests, we selected a 10 degree impact angle as the most appropriate. NHTSA also conducted sled tests at different impact angles (0, 5, 10, and 20 degrees) using the Takata sled procedure to compare them to four MDB crash tests (discussed in a later section) performed using the Q3s dummy restrained in a CRS in the rear seat behind the driver. We found that a 10 degree impact angle on the sled test produced dummy responses closer to those measured by the ATD in the same CRS in the four MDB crash tests than the other impact angles.67 3. Sled Buck Angle (Replicating Longitudinal Component of the Direction of Force) The ten small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 tests were used to determine the impact angle of the sled buck. The right rear sill acceleration signals on both the longitudinal (X-axis) and lateral (Y-axis) VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 66 Sullivan PO 00000 et al., 2009. Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 b. Rear Seat Environment Parameters The proposed SISA consists of a sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat mounted to a rail system, along with a side door structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck 67 Sullivan Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM et al. (2009). 28JAP3 EP28JA14.002</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 The relative velocity profile of the intruding door with respect to the sliding seat from the time the door first contacts the sliding seat structure to the time the sliding seat and the door reach a common velocity was determined from sled simulations with a door 4586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 structure. To ensure that the sliding ‘‘vehicle’’ seat and side door would be representative of today’s passenger vehicles, NHTSA conducted a vehicle survey to examine the geometry and contact characteristics of present day vehicle rear seats, to select the geometry and material characteristics that are necessary to replicate the physical environment of a typical rear seat in a side impact test. NHTSA identified the following rear seat features to replicate in the SISA: Rear seat geometry, rear seat cushion stiffness, and door shape (height of window, armrest thickness, door padding). More information about the vehicle survey can be found in a technical report that has been placed in the docket. NHTSA also performed a series of sled tests to undertake a sensitivity analysis to better understand the effect of the sled test parameters and sled system configuration on dummy responses. The parameters evaluated were the seat cushion stiffness, door padding stiffness, presence of armrest, and window sill height. Details of the findings of the sensitivity analysis are discussed in Sullivan (2011), supra, and are summarized in the discussion below and in the docketed technical report. 1. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness In the vehicle survey, NHTSA measured the rear seat cushion stiffness of 13 vehicles, as well as the seat cushion stiffness of the seat cushions used in FMVSS No. 213, ECE R.44, and the NPACS programs.68 The 13 vehicles selected were a mix of different vehicle manufacturers and different vehicle types (passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, etc.). The NPACS cushion foam was evaluated even though the NPACS rating system is only in draft form, because European efforts to upgrade ECE R.44 are considering the use of NPACS foam for the seat cushion.69 Measurements were taken at various locations on the rear seat cushion of vehicles in quasi-static compression tests using an indentation plate.70 The FMVSS No. 213 foam was found to be softer than all the vehicle seat foams surveyed. The NPACS and ECE R.44 foams were stiffer than the FMVSS No. 213 foam, and more representative of the vehicles selected in this study. In NHTSA’s sensitivity analysis (see docketed technical report), we 68 Id. 69 LeClaire, M., and Cheung, G., ‘‘NPACS (New Programme for Assessment of Child restraint Systems, Phase 1 Final Report’’ PPAD 9/33/128, Prepared for the Department of Transport, U.K., March 2006. 70 Id. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 conducted sled tests with the Q3s to determine the effect of the seat cushion stiffness on dummy readings and CRS performance. Three CRS models were evaluated (Evenflo Triumph Advance DLX, Maxi-Cosi Priori XP and Graco SafeSeat Step2/Cozy Cline). The FMVSS No. 213 foam (with vinyl cover) and the ECE R.44 foam (with cloth cover) were used in this series of tests.71 The results of the evaluation indicated that seat cushion foam stiffness had little effect on the dummy responses in these side impact tests. Based on the above, the agency is proposing that the seat cushion foam for the SISA have the stiffness of the ECE R.44 seat foam, given that the ECE R.44 foam is more representative of the current rear seats in the vehicle fleet than the FMVSS No. 213 cushion foam. The agency prefers the ECE R.44 foam over that of the NPACS foam because, although the two foams are similar in stiffness, the ECE R.44 foam is more readily available than the NPACS foam. Further, the NPACS procedure is still in draft form. The agency has initiated a research program to evaluate how the test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 frontal sled test should be updated to reflect any significant real world developments. Within this program, the agency’s plans include developing a test bench seat with seat cushion stiffness that has characteristics of seat cushions in recent vehicle models.72 The agency will consider, to the extent possible under the timeframes for the research and rulemaking programs, the merits of using this updated seat cushion foam in the side impact sled. In the meantime, the agency is currently proposing to use the ECE R.44 foam for the sliding bench seat in the side impact sled. While our current test data indicate that seat cushion foam stiffness has little effect on the dummy responses in this side impact test procedure, we request comment on the proposed seat cushion foam and seat cushion assembly. 2. Rear Seat Door Stiffness To determine the sled door padding characteristics, we impact-tested eight vehicle doors using a Free Motion Head (FMH) (see the docketed technical 71 Sullivan et al. (2011). also MAP–21, § 31501(b), ‘‘Frontal Impact Test Parameters.’’ Paragraph (1) states that, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of MAP– 21 (July 6, 2012), the Secretary shall commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend the standard seat assembly specifications under FMVSS No. 213 ‘‘to better simulate a single representative motor vehicle rear seat.’’ Paragraph (2) states that not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of MAP–21, the Secretary shall issue a final rule pursuant to paragraph (1). 72 See PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 report and Sullivan (2011)). The FMH impact tests consisted of a 3.5 kg (7.7 lb) child head form launched horizontally towards the door at 24 and 32 km/h (15 and 20 mph, respectively), which are the FMH impact test velocities used to test vehicle interiors in FMVSS No. 201, ‘‘Occupant protection in interior impact’’ (49 CFR 571.201). The FMH was directed at different locations on the door where the head of the dummy was most likely to make contact. That is, the impact points were selected based on the center of gravity and top of the head locations of the Hybrid III (HIII) 3 YO child ATD, the HIII 6 YO child ATD, and the HIII 10 YO child ATD seated on the vehicle seat. The impact points were determined by tracking the location of head-to-door contact of these different sized ATDs when seated in the rear seat of a vehicle and leaned forward and laterally towards the door. Based on the results from the FMH tests of the eight vehicles, three foams (described as ‘‘stiff,’’ ‘‘average’’ and ‘‘soft’’ foams) spanning the range of vehicle door padding FMH impact characteristics were selected. In NHTSA’s sensitivity analysis (see technical report), we conducted a series of sled tests with the Q3s to assess the effect of door padding stiffness on the performance of the two CRS models (Graco Safe Seat Step 2 and Maxi Cosi Priori XP). ‘‘Soft’’ (United Foam # 2), ‘‘average’’ (Dow Ethafoam 220), and ‘‘stiff’’ (United Foam # 4) foam were used in 51 mm (2 in) thick padding applied to the simulated door wall panel.73 Results showed that the door stiffness had little effect on dummy performance. The door stiffness had little effect on the Q3s dummy’s HIC15 and chest deflection results, when restrained in the Graco SafeSeat Step 2 and Maxi-Cosi Priori XP seats, for the soft, average, and stiff door panel foams. Given the above information, the agency is proposing that the door of the SISA comprise of 51 mm (2 in) thick foam of ‘‘average’’ stiffness, so as to be representative of the average rear seat characteristics. In addition, the foam material with average stiffness (Dow Ethafoam 220) is of lower cost compared to the other foams, is relatively easy to obtain commercially, and is relatively fungible, in that other materials with similar physical properties could easily be used in its place. 3. Rear Seat Environment Geometry The agency surveyed 2010 model year passenger vehicles (passenger cars, SUVs, vans) to obtain dimensional 73 Sullivan E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM et al. (2009). 28JAP3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules characteristics of rear seat attributes that could affect the performance of a CRS in the rear seat compartment.74 These attributes were: Seat back angle, seat pan angle, beltline height (from approximately the vehicle seat bight (i.e., the intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back)), height of the top of the armrest (from the seat bight), and armrest thickness (protrusion of the armrest from the door).75 The agency measured the seat and door geometry, position, and dimensions using a Seat Geometry Measuring Fixture (SGMF).76 The SGMF was positioned on the centerline of a rear seating position and measurements were made with respect to point A (center of the hinge) of the SGMF. Armrest Thickness The armrest thickness (protrusion of armrest in the door) for the 25 vehicles surveyed ranged from 25 mm to 105 mm (1 in to 4.1 in). One vehicle was at or below 50 mm (2.1 in), 8 vehicles were between 51 mm and 70 mm (2.0 in and 2.75 in), 10 vehicles were between 71 mm and 80 mm (2.75 in and 3.1 in), and 5 vehicles were above 81 mm (3.1 in). One vehicle had no armrest. The armrest thickness selected for the SISA sled system consists of a 64 mm (2.5 in) thick padding material attached to a 51 mm (2 in) thick door panel. The 64 mm (2.5 in) thickness of the armrest foam is within the range of armrest thickness from surveyed vehicles. Beltline and Armrest Heights The beltline (window sill) and top of the armrest heights of the 24 surveyed vehicles were measured using the SGMF with respect to point A (center of the hinge of the SGMF) (see Figure 4). The survey showed that the beltline heights varied between 413 mm and 566 mm (16.2 in and 22.2 in) in height and the armrest heights varied between 122 mm and 349 mm (4.8 in and 13.7 in) with respect to point A. A 489 mm (19.2 in) beltline height and a 238 mm (9.3 in) armrest height were found to be about the median values of the vehicles’ ranges. A 494 mm (19.4 in) beltline height and a 229 mm (9 in) armrest height were found to be about the average values for the vehicles surveyed. In NHTSA’s sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests of forward-facing and rear-facing CRS models and the Q3s dummy with the beltline height at 479 mm (18.8 in) and at 500 mm (19.6 in) to determine the effect of beltline height on dummy responses. Only 2 CRS models showed slightly lower HIC15 values with the raised windowsill. Of the 7 CRS models tested with both beltline heights, chest deflection decreased when the beltline height was raised from 479 mm to 500 mm (18.8 to 19.6 in). Only one CRS model resulted in higher chest deflections when the windowsill was raised, and 2 CRSs had chest deflections that were almost unchanged. Tests with the CRABI dummy in rearfacing CRSs showed that the different beltline heights did not affect dummy responses. We believe this was due to the fact that most rear-facing CRSs designed for smaller children position 74 See Aram et al., ‘‘Vehicle Rear Seat Study— Technical Report, NHTSA, 2013,’’ which is in the docket for this NPRM. 75 The original Takata sled buck did not include an armrest. We modified the sled buck to include an armrest. 76 The SGMF was fabricated using two 2 × 4 wood blocks (600 mm × 88 mm × 38 mm) and a three inch hinge. Photographs of the SGMF are in the report by Aram et al. (2013), supra. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.003</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Seat Back and Seat Pan Angle The seat back angle of the vehicles surveyed ranged from 9 to 28 degrees. The average was 20 degrees with a standard deviation of 4 degrees (see Sullivan et. al (2011) and technical report). The seat pan angle (the angle of the seat cushion to the horizontal) ranged from 7 to 23 degrees. The average seat pan angle was 13 degrees with a standard deviation of 4 degrees. The original Takata buck had a seat back angle and a seat pan angle of 20 and 15 degrees, respectively. Both the seat back angle and the seat pan angle are well within the ranges found in NHTSA’s vehicle survey, and are the same as the ECE R.44 bench seat. Therefore, these angles were adopted in the SISA. 4587 4588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules the SISA. Although this value is slightly higher than the average beltline height, it is well within the range of beltline heights for the vehicles surveyed. The dimensions of the SISA door structure and armrest design and placement relative to the test platform are shown in Figure 5 below. lower with the armrest present, although not as pronounced as for HIC15. NHTSA is proposing that the armrest/ door configuration for the SISA consist of the 51 mm (2 in) ‘‘average’’ stiffness foam padding (Ethafoam 220) on the door and a 64 mm (2.5 in) ‘‘stiff’’ foam (United Foam #4) for the armrest. This configuration appears to be representative of the rear seat environment, and dummy responses with this armrest/door configuration were similar to those seen in vehicle crash tests (see Dynamic Validation of Sled Test section, infra).77 Further, the stiff United Foam #4 also has a thickness of 64 mm (2.5 in) which is within the range of armrest thicknesses from surveyed vehicles. NHTSA is proposing that the front face of the armrest on the door be approximately 32 mm from the edge of the bench seat towards the child restraint system at the time the door assembly interacts with the SISA bench seat structure. Because of the prescribed position of the armrest (32 mm from the edge of the seat) and the CRS (centered 300 mm from the edge of the seat) at the time the door first interacts with the bench seat structure, the intruding door will contact CRSs that are wider earlier in the event than those that are narrower. This would result in higher door impact velocity to wide CRSs than to narrow CRSs. We believe this is representative of how different CRS designs will perform in a specific vehicle. However, we are requesting comment on whether the distance of the front face of the armrest from the edge of the seat at the time the sliding seat starts to accelerate should be kept constant or should be varied such that all CRSs, regardless of their width, contact the impacting door at the same time and with the same initial impact speed. To have a door panel/armrest configuration in the SISA test buck with similar stiffness characteristics to those observed in the surveyed vehicles, we conducted FMH tests on various padding material combinations. Four of the 8 vehicles previously tested with the FMH to assess door panel force displacement characteristics also had impacts to the armrests to determine their armrest characteristics. The energy versus displacement curves of FMH impacts to the armrests indicated that the average armrest stiffness in the vehicles surveyed could be replicated on the SISA using 64 mm (2.5 in) of the foam we identified as ‘‘stiff’’ foam (United Foam #4) (see ‘‘Rear Seat Door Stiffness’’ section, supra) attached on top of 51 mm (2 in) of the ‘‘average’’ foam padding the door structure. Id. In NHTSA’s sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests with the Maxi Cosi Priori and the Graco Safe Seat 2 with the armrest/door configuration. The results of these tests were compared to those from door padding-only sled tests and from the actual vehicle tests. We found that the addition of the armrest tended to reduce the HIC15 values of the Q3s due to the early interaction of the ATD’s pelvis resulting from the added armrest. Chest displacements also tended to be VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 Seating Position The SISA bench seat consists of a single seating position representing a rear outboard seating position for simulating a near-side impact. The centerline of this outboard seating position is at a distance of 300 mm (11.8 in) measured laterally from the edge of the bench seat closest to the impacting door. NHTSA is proposing to install the child restraint centered on the SISA bench seating position. In addition, 77 Sullivan PO 00000 et al. (2011). Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 LATCH We propose that the SISA be equipped with LATCH anchorages that are symmetrically located on either side of the centerline of this simulated E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.004</GPH> seated higher above the beltline, HIC15 values were lower than when the ATD’s head was lower than the beltline. In order to ensure that the side impact test is sufficiently stringent to account for vehicle beltlines that are higher than the average value, we are proposing a beltline height of 500 mm (19.6 in) for Armrest Stiffness ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 the head lower (mostly below the beltline) and therefore the increased height (at 500 mm or 19.6 in) did not affect the outcome. Only 6 vehicles (of the 24 surveyed) had a windowsill below the 479 mm (18.8 in) and were considered less representative of the vehicle fleet. Our test results indicated that with the Q3s 4589 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ‘‘outboard seating position’’ of the SISA bench seat. The location of the top tether anchorage would be on the lower rear frame of the seat (similar to the typical location of a tether anchorage in captain’s seats in minivans). The LATCH anchorages are shown in the drawings that have been placed in the docket for today’s NPRM. FMVSS No. 213 currently requires CRSs to be capable of being secured to a vehicle seat with the LATCH system,78 and to meet the frontal crash requirements of the standard when using the LATCH system. Today’s NPRM proposes that CRSs covered in this proposal, other than beltpositioning seats, must meet the side impact performance requirements when attached to the SISA with the lower LATCH attachments. We propose to test belt-positioning seats to the side impact protection requirements with Type II (lap and shoulder) belts. We propose that the child restraint’s top tether be attached during the side impact test when testing forward-facing CRSs that provide a tether. We are c. Dynamic Validation of the Sled Test requesting comment on whether the standard should also require testing without the top tether attached for these forward-facing CRSs. Comments are also requested on whether the standard should require CRSs to meet the proposed side impact requirements when attached to the SISA with a belt system, and on whether the belt system should be a Type I (lap) or a Type II (lap and shoulder) belt system.79 The original Takata sled had a Type II belt system; NHTSA modified the test bench seat to incorporate child restraint anchorages and also modified the location of the Type II belt anchorages based on NHTSA’s survey of vehicle rear seat geometry.80 Preliminary tests conducted with CRSs attached to the sliding seat using the Type II belt system showed similar performance metrics to that obtained when the CRSs were attached using the child restraint anchorage system, suggesting that the method of CRS attachment has minimal effect on performance. To determine if the sled test with the selected parameters satisfactorily simulates a small passenger vehicle side impact crash test, NHTSA conducted four FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 2008 Nissan Sentra and 2008 Nissan Versa using the Q3s dummy and two CRS models (see Table 10). For the first test of the Sentra (Test #6634), the impact location was that specified in FMVSS No. 214. (In an FMVSS No. 214 MDB test, the MDB is positioned such that in a left side impact, the MDB’s left forward edge (corner) impacts the struck vehicle 940 mm (37 inches) forward of the mid-point of the wheelbase.) In the remaining three tests, the impact location was moved 229 mm (9 in) rearward so that the MDB engaged most of the rear door instead of the front door, to provide for more direct contact of the MDB with the CRS. The side curtain air bags were disabled from the vehicle tests to allow for a direct comparison to the sled. (Sullivan (2009).) TABLE 10—VEHICLE TEST SETUPS Test No. 6634 6635 6636 6637 Vehicle model ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ Model class Sentra ........................ Sentra ........................ Versa ......................... Versa ......................... Table 11 shows data from the vehicle tests. The technical report docketed with this NPRM presents a detailed analysis of these data. The sled type side impact test with a 10 degree angle, an armrest and a beltline height of 479 mm (18.8 in) 81 provided good Light PV Light PV Compact Compact Impact location ..................... ..................... PV .............. PV .............. CRS 214 ...................................... 214–229mm to rear ............ 214–229mm to rear ............ 214–229mm to rear ............ Graco Safe Seat Step 2 ..... Graco Safe Seat Step 2 ..... Graco Safe Seat Step 2 ..... Maxi-Cosi Priori .................. representation of the vehicle, dummy, and CRS kinematics observed in the vehicle tests. In both sled and vehicle tests, the intruding door and armrest first engages the lower part of the CRS, causing the bottom of the CRS to move away from the door. This results in the Dummy Q3s. Q3s. Q3s. Q3s. top of the CRS tilting towards the door and contacting it. The child dummy is first engaged by the CRS through the pelvis, followed by the torso and lastly the head. The dummy’s head rotates forward when it contacts the side wing of the CRS. TABLE 11—VEHICLE AND SLED TESTS WITH THE GRACO SAFE SEAT STEP 2 Test No. 6634 6635 6636 6904 Vehicle model/sled test ................ ................ ................ ................ ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 6905 ................ Sentra ..................................................... Sentra ..................................................... Versa ...................................................... Sled Test (10 degrees, Armrest and 479 mm beltline). Sled Test (10 degrees, Armrest and 479 mm beltline). 78 See S5.9, FMVSS No. 213. Excluded from this requirement are car beds, child harnesses, and beltpositioning seats. 79 FMVSS No. 213 currently does not use a Type II belt system. The agency tests CRSs for compliance with the frontal crash protection requirements using LATCH and a Type I (lap) belt system. NHTSA is researching the merits of VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 Chest displacement (mm) HIC15 Frm 00021 Spine Y acceleration (g) Pelvic Y acceleration (g) 521 518 414 634 17 12 14 25 1054 1244 1235 944 89 85 91 91 71 79 106 83 594 25 999 93 75 changing the belt system on the standard seat assembly to Type II belts. 80 Aram, et al., ‘‘Vehicle Rear Seat Study— Technical Report, NHTSA, 2013,’’ supra. 81 The agency did not perform a sled test with a window sill height of 500 mm (19.6 in) with the Graco Safe Seat Step 2 or the Maxi Cosi Priori CRS models (tested in the vehicle crash tests), therefore, PO 00000 Neck tension newtons (N) Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 no dynamic comparison analysis was done. Based on the sensitivity analysis results with the two different window sill heights, the agency expects the magnitude of the head acceleration to be slightly higher but the timing and profile of the head and pelvis accelerations should be very similar to the tests with a window sill height of 479 mm (18.8 in). E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules The Q3s dummy responses in the modified Takata sled tests were compared to the three vehicle side impact crash tests. Peak pelvic and spine accelerations were similar but the magnitude of HIC15 and chest displacement in the sled tests were slightly higher than those in the vehicle tests. The differences in magnitude can be attributed to the differences in vehicle rear seat geometry and to that of the sled seat. The geometry of the sled seat was based on average characteristics of the vehicle fleet, and not based on the Nissan Sentra. In addition, differences in the arm position of the dummy in the vehicle and sled tests may have contributed to the higher chest deflection in the sled tests. The effect of the arm position on chest deflection is discussed in more detail in a later section of this preamble. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 XII. Proposed Dynamic Performance A 3 YO child test dummy and a 12 MO infant dummy have been tentatively selected for testing CRSs under the proposed side impact requirements. a. Q3s Test Dummy The agency has selected the Q3s dummy, representing a 3 YO child, for testing CRSs designed for children in a weight range that includes children weighing from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb). The 18 kg (40 lb) weight cut off would be identical to that of the frontal collision requirements of FMVSS No. 213 (see S7). For the frontal crash requirements, a Hybrid III 3 YO child ATD is used to test CRSs recommended for children weighing from 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb). The agency tentatively concludes that the Q3s, weighing 14.5 kg (32 lb), would suitably represent children in the 10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) range for side impact testing. The anthropometry of the Q3 (and the side impact adaptation Q3s) is based on the Child Anthropometry Database (CANDAT) for a 3 YO child compiled by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). CANDAT includes various characteristic dimensions and weights of children of different ages obtained from different regions in the world including United States, Europe, and Japan. The Q3s dummy is a three-year-old child crash test dummy built on the platform of the standard Q3 dummy series with enhanced lateral biofidelity, durability and additional instrumentation for side impact testing. The Q3s dummy features a new head and a neck that has biofidelic lateral, and frontal performance. The ATD also has a deformable shoulder with VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 shoulder deflection measurement capabilities, a new arm with improved flesh characteristics, a laterally compliant chest and a pelvis with improved upper leg flesh, floating hip cups, and a pubic load transducer.82 The agency began evaluating the Q3s in 2002. The evaluation has demonstrated good biofidelity, repeatability, reproducibility, and durability. We have tentatively selected the Q3s dummy for this NPRM because it is commercially available, and has shown to be durable and biofidelic for the intended application in the proposed FMVSS No. 213 side impact tests. Further discussion of the Q3s can be found in the NPRM proposing incorporation of the Q3s test dummy into 49 CFR Part 572, ‘‘Anthropomorphic test devices,’’ previously published. The Q3s dummy accepts different types of instrumentation, including accelerometers and load cells among others. The instrumentation we propose using with the ATD are three uni-axial accelerometers at the head center of gravity (C.G.) and an InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression (IR–TRACC) in the thorax for measuring lateral chest deflection. The IR–TRACC is a deformation measurement tool that consists of an infrared LED emitter and an infrared phototransistor detector. The emitter and detector are enclosed at each end of a telescoping tube. The chest deformation is determined from the irradiance measured by the detector, which is inversely proportional to the distance of the detector from the emitter. The IR–TRACC is standard instrumentation in the Q3s dummy. The enhanced biofidelity and instrumentation capabilities of the Q3s make it our preferred option for use in FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA has considered an alternative 3 YO child ATD, based on the Hybrid III design, for use in this NPRM. Our reasons for preferring the Q3s are discussed in the 49 CFR Part 572 NPRM.83 We request comments on the alternative of using the Hybrid IIIbased 3 YO ATD instead of the Q3s. 82 Carlson, M., Burleigh, M., Barnes, A., Waagmeester, K., van Ratingen, M. ‘‘Q3s 3 Year Old Side Impact Dummy Development,’’ 20th International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 07–0205, 2007. https://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0205-O.pdf. Last accessed on June 11, 2012. 83 NHTSA found that the two dummies’ heads and necks provided nearly equivalent biofidelity; however, in all other biofidelity test conditions— shoulder, thorax and pelvis—the Q3s exhibited significant advantages relative to the alternative HIII 3–YO design. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Injury Criteria for Use With the Q3s The agency analyzed NASS–CDS data average annual estimates (1995–2009) for AIS 2+ injuries to children 0 to 12 YO in rear seats. Data showed that the most common AIS 2+ injuries among children restrained in side impacts were to the head and face (55 percent), torso (chest and abdomen—29 percent), and upper and lower extremities (13 percent). Given the high frequency of head and thoracic injuries to children involved in side crashes reported in these data and in multiple studies,84 the injury criteria proposed in this NPRM focus on the child occupant’s head and thorax. The agency is proposing to address the potential for head injuries by setting a maximum on the HIC value measured by the Q3s in the side impact test. HIC is used in FMVSS No. 213 and in all other crashworthiness FMVSSs that protect against adult and child head injury. However, while the current FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact requirement specifies an injury assessment reference value (IARV) of 1,000 measured in a 36 ms timeframe (36 ms for integrating head acceleration) (HIC36 = 1,000), we are proposing a HIC limit of 570 measured in a 15 ms timeframe (15 ms duration for integrating head resultant acceleration) (HIC15 = 570) when using the Q3s dummy in the side impact sled test. FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ uses HIC15 = 570 for the Hybrid III 3 YO dummy.85 We recognize that FMVSS No. 213’s frontal impact performance requirement specifies a HIC36 IARV of 1,000 when using the CRABI and the Hybrid III 3 and 6 YO dummies in the standard’s frontal impact test.86 We also recognize that in a 2003 rulemaking responding to the TREAD Act, NHTSA considered adopting the FMVSS No. 208 scaled IARVs in FMVSS No. 213 but decided against doing so (68 FR 37620, 37649; June 24, 2003). CRSs were already providing high levels of crash performance in the field, yet frontal sled test data indicated that CRSs would not 84 See Craig, M., ‘‘Q3s Injury Criteria,’’ which is in the docket for this NPRM. 85 In developing this NPRM, NHTSA has considered alternative HIC15 requirements of 400 and 800. The PRIA provides an assessment of benefits and costs of the HIC15 = 400 and 800 alternatives. 86 The agency did not adopt the use of HIC as an injury measure for the Hybrid III 10–YO child dummy (HIII–10C) dummy in FMVSS No. 213 tests because CRSs tested with the HIII–10C dummy can produce high HIC values as a result of hard chinto-chest contact, indicating an unacceptable risk of head injury, even though head injuries due to chinto-chest contact are not occurring in the real world. (76 FR 11626; February 27, 2012.) E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules meet the FMVSS No. 208 scaled IARV limits. It was not known what modifications to CRSs were necessary for the restraints to meet the FMVSS No. 208 limits in the frontal configuration. In addition to questions about the practicability of modifying CRSs to meet the proposed IARVs and the safety need for such modifications, the agency decided that the cost increases resulting from the redesign—and the possible negative effect the cost increases could have on consumers’ use of CRSs—were not justified. Id. We tentatively conclude that today’s proposed side impact test differs from FMVSS No. 213’s frontal impact test such that the FMVSS No. 208 scaled IARV of HIC15 = 570 is reasonable for today’s proposal. FMVSS No. 213’s frontal impact test evaluates the performance of CRSs on a frontal impact sled buck that does not have a structure (representing a front seat) forward of the tested CRS on the bench seat. In contrast, in today’s proposed side impact test, the test environment is set up so that ATD head contact with the CRS and the door is probable. Injurious contacts (such as head-to-door contacts) are of short duration (less than 15 ms) in this set-up and more appropriately addressed by HIC15 (15 millisecond duration for integrating head resultant acceleration) than HIC36. For head impact accelerations with duration less than 15 ms, the computed value of HIC15 and HIC36 are generally equivalent. However, since the injury threshold level for HIC15 is 570 while that for HIC36 is 1,000, HIC15 is a more stringent requirement than HIC36 for short duration impacts and is better able to discern injurious impact events. On the other hand, for long duration accelerations without a pronounced peak such as those when the head does not contact any hard surfaces such as in the frontal FMVSS No. 213 test, the computed HIC15 value may be lower than the HIC36 value and the HIC36 computation may be a better representation of the overall head acceleration. With regard to chest protection, the agency proposes a chest displacement IARV for the Q3s of 23 mm to evaluate CRS performance in a side environment. Mertz (2003) 87 presented lateral thoracic injury risk IARVs for deflection purely based on length-based scaling from adult cadaver/dummy response. Mertz suggested a limit of 23 mm for 3 YO lateral rib deflection. This was 87 Mertz et al., ‘‘Biomechanical and Scaling Bases for Frontal and Side Impact Injury Assessment Reference Values,’’ 47th Stapp Car Crash Conference, 2003–22–0009, October 2003. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 derived only through length-based scaling from the adult and represented roughly a 30 percent probability of AIS 3+ injury. This compared very well with length-based scaling of chest deflection data from 42 adult post-mortem human subject (PMHS) tests completed by the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) and published by Kuppa (2003).88 This length-based scaling analysis of the MCW data is detailed in a technical report docketed along with this NPRM.89 The results of that analysis found that a displacement of 23 mm represented a 33 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. While Mertz and Craig used different and independent data sets, the rib deflection threshold at 30 percent risk of injury for the 3 YO child were similar and equal to 23 mm. Therefore, the agency proposes a chest displacement IARV of 23 mm to evaluate CRS performance with the Q3s. NHTSA tentatively believes that there is not a need for a performance criterion that would prohibit head contact with the intruding door.90 NHTSA’s video analysis showed that 13 out of 19 forward-facing CRS models had head-todoor contact during the test. However, further analysis of the head acceleration time histories showed that the peak acceleration occurred before the head contacted the door. Six of the 13 models that had head-to-door contact had HIC15 values exceeding 570; these peak HIC15 values occurred prior to head contact with the door. This suggested that the peak head acceleration was the result of a previous impact, most likely the head contacting the side of the CRS at the time the CRS contacted the intruding door. (Four of the ‘‘convertible’’ CRS models tested in the forward-facing mode, were also tested in the rear-facing mode using the Q3s dummy; the results showed there was no head-to-door contact during these tests.) Given that the head acceleration values computed during the time of head-to-door contact were lower than the peak head acceleration, we believe that the risk of head injury from headto-door contacts for the 13 CRSs was much lower than the risk from the peak acceleration. For the above reasons, the agency has tentatively decided not to use a performance criterion based on head contact in tests with the Q3s 88 Kuppa et al., ‘‘Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and Their Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib Extensions (ES–2re),’’ 47th Stapp Car Crash Conference, October 2003. 89 Craig, M., ‘‘Q3s Injury Criteria,’’ supra. 90 Such a performance criterion for CRSs is currently being used in the Australian standard AS/NZS 1754, and the Australian CREP consumer information program. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4591 dummy because HIC15 appears better able to discern between ‘‘soft’’ noninjurious contacts and ‘‘hard’’ injurious contacts, and thus would be a better predictor of head injury in the side impact test. b. CRABI Dummy The agency has tentatively selected the CRABI dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R) for testing CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 10 kg (22 lb). The 10 kg (22 lb) weight cut off would be identical to that of the frontal collision requirement of FMVSS No. 213 (see S7 of FMVSS No. 213), which specifies use of the CRABI to test CRSs recommended for children weighing from 5 kg to 10 kg (11 lb to 22 lb). The CRABI was developed through the efforts of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction Task Force. The ATD is used in FMVSS No. 208 to test advanced air bag systems and in FMVSS No. 213.91 The CRABI dummy is a frontal crash test dummy and is instrumented with head, neck and chest accelerometers. The CRABI represents a 12 MO infant. There is no infant test dummy available that is specially designed for side impact testing. While the CRABI dummy is not a side impact dummy, the agency believes that it could be a useful tool to evaluate some aspects of CRS performance in side impacts. Children under 1 YO have the highest restraint use, so we believe that it is important for safety and for MAP–21 to evaluate the performance of the CRSs they use, even if the evaluation is limited to containment, structural integrity, and other related matters. Performance Criteria for Use With the CRABI NHTSA is proposing that the CRABI be used to measure head-to-door contact only, and not HIC15 or chest acceleration. We have concerns about the real world relevance of the HIC values measured during developmental side impact testing using the CRABI dummy. In 12 side tests performed with rear-facing CRSs using the CRABI dummy, nearly all of the CRSs exceeded the HIC15 injury threshold value of 390 (used in FMVSS No. 208). See Figure 6, below. Four ‘‘convertible’’ CRS models tested in rear-facing mode were also tested in forward-facing mode using the 91 When the CRABI is used in the FMVSS No. 213 frontal impact test, CRSs must limit HIC36 to 1,000, chest g to 60 g, limit head excursion of the dummy, limit inclination of the restraint, have no injurious surfaces contactable by the ATD’s head or torso, and maintain the CRS’s structural integrity. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4592 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules protection against serious injury than forward-facing seats in side impacts.92 We hypothesize that a reason for the results using HIC15 as a performance criterion is that the CRABI dummy’s shoulder and neck are not designed for lateral loading and this may influence head kinematics prior to contact with the CRS/door. Additionally, the CRABI head does not meet lateral biofidelity standards. Therefore, both the severity of the resulting head contacts and the response of the head to those contacts may not be representative of the real world. On the other hand, we tentatively believe that the CRABI dummy would be suitable and should be used for assessing safety risks related to a CRS’s ability to limit head-to-door contact in side crashes. Because the 0 to 12 MO age group has the highest restraint use of any age group, we seek to evaluate the performance of CRSs for this age group in side crashes even if such evaluation is limited to assessing headto-door contact. Although the CRABI dummy may not be appropriate for use in measuring the potential for head injuries using HIC15, the agency tentatively believes that the CRABI dummy could provide some other useful information evaluating child restraints for small children. That is, the CRABI could provide a worst-case assessment of injury risk in a side impact in terms of head-to-door contact. If the CRS were unable to prevent the ATD’s head from contacting the door in the test, we believe such an outcome would be a reasonable indication of an unacceptable risk of head contact of children represented by the CRABI. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes head-todoor contact as a pass-fail criterion for assessing CRSs tested with the CRABI. We believe that this criterion will lead to improved side coverage. In our study, video analysis showed that 1 (Combi Shuttle) out of 12 rear-facing CRS models tested with the CRABI dummy had head-to-door contact during the test. In addition, we tentatively believe that the CRABI dummy would be suitable and should be used for assessing a CRS’s ability to maintain its structural integrity in side crashes when restraining 1 YO children. (Structural integrity requirements are discussed below.) We seek comment on the use of the CRABI dummy, and on the use of the proposed head-to-door contact passfail criterion. c. Energy Absorption and Distribution 92 Sherwood VerDate Mar<15>2010 In the simulated side impact test, the CRS would be required to maintain system integrity when tested with the Q3s and with the CRABI. When a CRS is dynamically tested with the appropriate ATD, there could not be any complete separation of any load-bearing structural element of the CRS or any partial separation exposing surfaces with sharp edges that may contact an occupant. These requirements would reduce the likelihood that a child using the CRS would be injured by the collapse or disintegration of the system in a side crash or by contact with the interior of the passenger compartment or with components of the CRS. Injury from contacting protrusions, such as the pointed ends of screws mounted in padding, would be prevented in a similar manner as that specified for the frontal crash test in FMVSS No. 213. The height of such et al. (2007). 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.005</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 CRABI dummy and in these tests, 2 of the 4 CRSs exceeded the 390 HIC15 injury threshold. Tests with the CRABI showed a high rate of HIC15 failure, yet field experience of rear-facing seats indicate that the CRSs are very safe in side impacts and provide 5 times more Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules XIII. Fleet Testing ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 a. Q3s Dummy NHTSA tested 12 forward-facing and 5 rear-facing CRSs to estimate the As to positioning the Q3s, we note that further analysis of the data showed that the chest displacements of the Q3s, tested in the same CRS model, were higher when the dummy’s arm was positioned in line with the thorax, than when the arm was rotated upward exposing the thorax to direct contact with the intruding door. The agency is proposing an arm position at 25 degrees with respect to the thorax. The Q3s dummy’s shoulder contains a detent to aid in positioning the arm at 25 degrees with respect to the thorax. We are requesting comment on the arm position. When testing with the Q3s dummy in a rear-facing CRS, the legs of the dummy 93 CRS models tested were a representative sample of seats available in the market. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 performance of the fleet with the Q3s in the proposed test procedure.93 Details of the test series are discussed in the technical report. Applying the proposed injury criteria specified for the Q3s dummy (HIC15 ≤570, chest deflection ≤23 mm), the results of the fleet tests showed that the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 570 in 7 of the 12 forward-facing CRSs tested. The Q3s measured chest deflection greater than 23 mm (0.91 in) in 3 of the 12 forward-facing CRSs tested. The ATD measured both HIC15 greater than 570 and chest deflection greater than 23 mm in 3 of the tests of the forward-facing CRSs. For the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, the results of the fleet tests showed that the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 570 in 3 of the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested, and chest deflection greater than 23 mm (0.91 in) in 2 of the 5 tests. The ATD measured both HIC15 greater than 570 and chest deflection greater than 23 mm (0.91 in) in 1 of the 5 rear-facing CRSs tested. The test results are shown in Figure 7. were extended upwards and rotated down until they were in contact with the SISA seat back. We are also requesting comment on the position of the Q3s dummy legs when testing rearfacing CRSs with this dummy. (2.5 in) thick armrest of ‘‘stiff’’ foam was added to the 50 mm (2 in) door panel foam. Twelve tests were performed with a window sill height at 479 mm (18.8 in). The test procedure proposed in today’s NPRM was used for this fleet test except for the use of the NPACS foam instead of the ECE R.44 foam and a window sill height of 479 mm (18.8 in) instead of a 500 mm (19.6 in) window sill height. The NPACS foam was used on these series of tests, as previous testing appeared to show that cushion stiffness did not have a significant influence in the readings of the ATDs. Three additional tests were performed with the beltline at 500 mm (19.6 in).94 b. CRABI Dummy NHTSA tested 12 rear-facing CRSs to estimate the performance of the fleet with the CRABI. All tests were performed with the SISA mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the seat orientation reference line (SORL) of the seat was 10 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform travel. CRSs were attached to the seat bench using LATCH. A 64 mm 94 The PO 00000 seat cushion consisted of ECE R.44 foam. Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.006</GPH> protrusions would be limited to not more than 9.5 mm (0.375 in) above any immediately adjacent surface. Also, contactable surfaces (surfaces contacted by the head or torso of the ATD) would not be permitted to have an edge with a radius of less than 6.35 mm (0.25 in), even under padding. Padding will compress in an impact and the load imposed on the child would be concentrated and potentially injurious. 4593 4594 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules Tests showed that the increase in window sill height did not significantly affect the performance of the rear-facing CRS using the CRABI. Models of CRSs for younger children generally positioned the head below a window sill height of 479 mm (18.8 in), so the CRSs will continue to be below the window sill when the window sill is at a height of 500 mm (19.6 in). Using head-to-door contact as the performance criterion in the fleet tests, the results showed that the CRABI had head contact only with the Combi Shuttle model (1 out of 12 models). The Combi Shuttle model was retested and results were found to be repeatable. The test results are summarized in Table 12. TABLE 12—FLEET TESTS RESULTS—CRABI CRABI Window sill @ 500 mm (19.6 in) Window sill @ 479 mm (18.8 in) Rear-facing Contact Contact Combi Shuttle .......................................................................................... Combi Shuttle .......................................................................................... Britax Advocate ....................................................................................... Combi Zeus 360 ...................................................................................... Safety 1st Air Protect .............................................................................. Graco My Ride ........................................................................................ Evenflo Discovery 5 ................................................................................ Chicco Key Fit 30 .................................................................................... Safety 1st Designer ................................................................................. Britax Chaperone .................................................................................... Maxi Cosi Mico ........................................................................................ Safety 1st OnBoard ................................................................................. Peg Pereggo ........................................................................................... * Contact ........................................ * Contact. No contact ..................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ Contact. No No No No No No No No No No No contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. contact. * Repeat tests to evaluate containment. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 The tests NHTSA performed during the development of the test procedure showed that some design characteristics such as side coverage (through head inserts or side structure/wings) can influence the values measured by the test dummy. As previously discussed, we examined each CRS with a seated Q3s dummy from a side view to VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 evaluate if the head of the dummy was completely covered (obscured) by the side structure or wing insert or if it was partially visible. We rated designs as ‘‘good’’ (solid outline) when they had ‘‘full’’ side view coverage (dummy’s head not visible, totally obscured). We considered the CRS designs as ‘‘average’’ (dashed outline) when 75 percent or more of the dummy’s head was obscured by the side structure or PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 wing insert. We considered a ‘‘poor’’ design (filled-in black) to be when less than 75 percent of the dummy’s head was obscured by the side structure and/ or head insert. Interestingly, test results showed that the CRSs with less side coverage (filled-in black) had the highest HIC15 values when tested with the beltline height at 479 mm (18.8 in) and at 500 mm (19.6 in). Results are depicted in Figures 8 and 9. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.007</GPH> XIV. Countermeasure Assessment These test results indicate that ‘‘good’’ side coverage as a fundamental element of the child restraint design can help improve child restraint performance. This can be achieved by having more side structure with padding on the interior side and/or by adding padded head inserts. We note that other features observed in the tested CRS models were a side air baffle (Britax Advocates) and an air pillow (Safety 1st Air Protect). According to the manufacturers of those CRSs, both the air baffle and the air pillow are supposed to absorb energy during impact. NHTSA was unable to verify these statements in our developmental program. We are interested in data showing that these or any other features are effective in improving CRS side impact performance. XV. Petition Regarding Deceleration Sled System ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Dorel Juvenile Group Petition for Rulemaking On May 4, 2009, we received a petition from the Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG) requesting us to include in our side impact proposal a dynamic side impact test procedure that uses a deceleration sled, as an alternative or substitute to a procedure based on the acceleration sled. The petitioner noted that NHTSA’s developmental work for this NPRM was done at VRTC, which VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 uses an acceleration sled. Unlike an acceleration sled, a deceleration sled is first accelerated to a target velocity and then decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile. The main event of interest occurs during the sled deceleration phase. DJG stated that the primary reason the new side impact test procedure for CRSs should allow a deceleration sled as an option to the acceleration sled is because CRS manufacturers are familiar with the deceleration sled in the frontal impact context, and either have or have ready access to deceleration sled equipment. It further noted that the deceleration sled is less expensive to acquire and operate. In its petition, DJG described work it conducted in collaboration with Kettering University to develop a CRS side impact sled test procedure using a deceleration sled (hereinafter referred to as the Dorel/Kettering test procedure). DJG’s petition provided a description of the Dorel/Kettering test procedure and included preliminary sled test data simulating a New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) MDB side impact test. According to DJG, the Dorel/Kettering test procedure employed a deceleration sled with a simulated door rigidly mounted to it (bullet sled) which impacted a target sled (bench seat with a CRS installed on it) that was initially stationary on a pair of low friction bearings, separate from the sled. In the procedure, the sled was accelerated to PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4595 the impact velocity of the NCAP MDB barrier face. The petitioner stated that the sled decelerator was tuned to match the MDB deceleration profile. The target sled was positioned such that contact of the honeycomb on the target sled with the door structure was coincident with the initiation of sled deceleration. The characteristics of the honeycomb attached to the target sled were selected such that its crushing resulted in the desired target sled acceleration profile (acceleration profile of the impacted vehicle in a side NCAP test). DJG provided data from four baseline sled tests, using a Hybrid III 3 YO child dummy with a modified neck (HIII–3Cs) in a CRS attached to the target sled, which were conducted to establish test parameters such as the bullet and target sled velocities. DJG also presented results to demonstrate the consistency and accuracy of the bullet and target sled velocities. In addition, DJG conducted a sensitivity analysis of various test parameters and said that the only parameter affecting the target sled was the honeycomb crushable area. DJG stated that it later conducted sled tests with the HIII–3Cs dummy in a Maxi Cosi Priori and a Safety 1st 3-in1 forward-facing child restraint and compared the results with tests conducted by NHTSA’s VRTC, which used an acceleration sled with the HIII– 3Cs dummy in the same child restraints. According to DJG, the comparison showed that even though there were E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.008</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4596 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 some differences in the methods, sled setups, and dummy neck hardware, the Dorel/Kettering target sled kinematics were comparable to that of the VRTC acceleration sled sliding seat, including the rate of acceleration, peak acceleration, and pulse duration. In addition, DJG noted that the dummy response duration and the impacting speed in the two sled systems were similar. Based on these data, DJG concluded that the Dorel/Kettering deceleration test procedure ‘‘complements’’ the VRTC acceleration sled test procedure and requested that the Dorel/Kettering deceleration test method be included in the proposal for a new side impact test in FMVSS No. 213. The DJG petition, along with the test data, is available in the docket of this NPRM. Discussion of Petition After analyzing the petitioner’s data, we are unable to conclude that the Dorel/Kettering test procedure complements, i.e., is comparable to, the Takata procedure we evaluated on the acceleration sled. While the Dorel/ Kettering test procedure appears to represent the intruding door velocity profile reasonably well, it does not sufficiently estimate the change in velocity of the passenger compartment as does the Takata acceleration sled procedure. The Dorel/Kettering test procedure does not include oblique side impacts or a representative armrest to the intruding door. In addition, the resultant head acceleration, HIC, upper neck forces and moments, pelvic resultant acceleration, and resultant spine acceleration of the HIII–3Cs dummy were consistently lower in the Dorel/Kettering tests than in the acceleration sled tests using the same CRS, door impact velocity, and similar type of dummy.95 DJG has also not presented any data demonstrating that the dummy responses in the Dorel/ Kettering sled tests are similar to those observed in vehicle crash tests. For these reasons, we believe that the Dorel/ Kettering test procedure needs further development to represent the crash environment experienced by children in child restraints in near-side impacts in a manner comparable to the Takata procedure evaluated by the agency on the acceleration sled. We note, however, that one of the strengths of the Takata test procedure is its simplicity and apparent versatility for application on an acceleration or a deceleration sled system. We believe 95 The Dorel/Kettering test procedure has not been evaluated using the Q3s child dummy. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 that the provisions of the proposed test procedure, specified in the regulatory text, can be used to conduct the test on either an acceleration or a deceleration sled. Therefore, we do not believe there is a need to include a new test procedure expressly applicable to a deceleration sled in this proposal, as DJG requested. It is our desire that the proposed test procedure be specified in a way that it can be conducted on an acceleration or a deceleration sled. The agency is planning to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed sled test procedure in different laboratories. We are interested in comments on what parameters, additional to the proposed specifications, should be specified to reproduce the proposed test procedure on a deceleration sled. In any event, we note that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, child restraint manufacturers are required to certify the compliance of their child restraints with the applicable FMVSSs. The Safety Act does not require manufacturers to certify their products using the test procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. Instead, the safety standard sets forth the procedures that NHTSA will take to conduct compliance tests. In the event of a noncompliance with an FMVSS, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer the basis for its certification, and will review the data upon which the certification was made. Depending on the situation, the information used for the certification could be from a sled test matching the test specified in the standard, a comparable sled test providing valid and accurate results, or it could be from entirely different method of inquiry as long as a good faith certification could be made. Thus, if FMVSS No. 213 were to specify a test that describes an acceleration sled system, that would not preclude a manufacturer from using a deceleration sled to test and certify its child restraints. Accordingly, since the FMVSSs do not need to incorporate a specific test procedure preferred by a manufacturer for the manufacturer to be able to use the test procedure as its chosen basis for certification, the petitioner’s requested action is not necessary. For these reasons, the petition is denied. XVI. Costs and Benefits There are approximately 7.42 million child restraints sold annually for children weighing up to 40 lb. These child restraints are composed of rearfacing infant seats, convertible seats (seats that can be used rear-facing and forward-facing), toddler seats (seats with PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 harnesses, used only forward-facing), and combination seats (seats that can be used from forward-facing to booster mode). Of this total, it is estimated that there are approximately 2.73 million infant seats, 2.76 million convertible/ toddler seats and 1.93 million combination seats. These sales estimates are based on sales in calendar year 2011. Based on our sled test data, we estimate that approximately 80 percent of rear-facing infant seats (2.18 million) would need larger wings (padded side structure) and/or additional padding, and that similar countermeasures would be needed for 58.3 percent of the convertible/toddler seats (1.6 million) and 58.3 percent of combination seats (1.1 million). The retail cost of padding for rear-facing seats is estimated to be $0.66 per CRS. Accordingly, we estimate that the annual consumer cost for 2.18 million rear-facing CRSs that do not already comply with this test would be $1.441 million. The retail cost of padding for convertible/toddler seats that do not already comply with this test is estimated to be approximately $0.82 per CRS, so the annual consumer cost for 1.6 million convertible/toddler seats would be $1.321 million. The retail cost of padding for combination seats that do not already comply with this test is estimated to be approximately $0.82 per CRS, so the annual consumer cost for 1.1 million combination CRSs would be $0.925 million. The total annual consumer cost for the CRSs is estimated to be approximately $3.687 million. Distributing this total cost to all child restraints sold annually for children weighing up to 40 lb (7.42 million child restraints) results in an average cost of $0.50 per child restraint. Comments are requested on these calculations. This NPRM proposes to apply the side impact protection requirements to beltpositioning seats designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) to improve the protection of children seated in such CRSs. Applying the side impact protection requirements to more children than less is consistent with MAP–21. We do not have test data that can be used to estimate the countermeasures needed on beltpositioning seats to meet the proposed side impact protection requirements. Comments are requested on the countermeasures needed by beltpositioning seats to meet side impact requirements when tested with the Q3s. Since CRSs sold for children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb) would be excluded from the proposed side impact protection requirements, an approach available at no additional cost to manufacturers would be to re-label the E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules belt-positioning seat as not recommended for children weighing less than 18 kg (40 lb). We find this approach to be desirable in that it is aligned with NHTSA’s view 96 that children under age 4 are more protected in a CRS with a harness than in a beltpositioning seat. Moreover, the labeling change would increase the likelihood that children would be restrained by CRSs that meet side impact protection requirements up to 18 kg (40 lb) (until about 4 years in age). Regardless of whether a manufacturer re-labels the belt-positioning seat to restrict use of the belt-positioning seat to children weighing over 18 kg (40 lb) or designs a belt-positioning seat to meet the proposed requirements, the effect of the proposed requirement would be to improve the side impact protection to children weighing less than 18 kg (40 lb). We believe that there will be no lost sales due to the change in the booster seat label. There are no boosters on the market sold only for children from 30 to 40 lb. Boosters are sold for children with a starting weight of 30 or 40 lb, to a maximum weight of 60, 70, 80 or more pounds. Those that are sold for children with a starting weight of 30 lb will just be relabeled to have the minimum weight start at 40 lb. Children riding in harnessed toddler seats will continue using the toddler seat until they graduate to a booster seat at a minimum weight of 40 lb. Similarly, combination seats that are sold for use with younger children (with a harness) and older children (as a booster) will continue to be marketed to the same children as before the rule. The only change resulting from the new label would be that the booster seat mode would not be recommended for use until the child reaches 40 lb. Comments are requested on this issue. We estimate that 36.7 non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1–5) to children in rearfacing child restraints annually would be prevented by the proposed requirements. In addition, 5.2 fatalities and 27.6 non-fatal injuries to children in forward-facing child restraints annually would be prevented by the proposed requirements. We have not estimated the annual benefits for children in the weight range 13.6–18 kg (30–40 lb) who are restrained in belt-positioning seats because we have not estimated the countermeasures needed. However, we believe that the benefits of beltpositioning seats with improved side impact protection for children weighing 96 https://www.safercar.gov/parents/ RightSeat.htm. Last accessed August 7, 2012. See also PRIA, pp. 19–20. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 13.6–18 kg (30–40 lb) are very small since FARS and NASS–CDS data files indicate very few injuries in side impact crashes to this population of children in belt-positioning seats.97 The total benefits of this proposed rule would be 5.2 fatalities and 64 MAIS 1–5 injuries prevented, which amount to 18.3 equivalent lives saved per year.98 The equivalent lives and the monetized benefits were estimated in accordance with guidance issued February 28, 2013 by the Office of the Secretary 99 regarding the treatment of value of a statistical life in regulatory analyses. The PRIA, available in the docket for this NPRM, details the methodology for estimating costs, benefits, and net benefits resulting from this proposed rule. The monetized net benefits for this proposed rule were estimated to be $178.9 million at 3 percent discount rate and $162.0 million at 7 percent discount rate in 2010 dollars. The agency estimates that the cost of conducting the test described in the proposed rule would be approximately $1,300. We estimate that 96 CRS models comprise the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually that are subject to this NPRM. The subject CRSs are rear-facing CRSs, and convertible, toddler, and combination CRSs designed for children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb). Of the 96 CRS models, 31 models are infant seats, 50 models are convertible seats, and 15 models are toddler and combination seats. The infant seats would involve one sled test with the 12 MO CRABI, the convertible seats would involve 3 sled tests (2 sled tests in the rear-facing mode with the 12 MO CRABI and the Q3s and 1 sled test in forward-facing mode with the Q3s), and the toddler and combination seats would involve 1 sled test with the Q3s. Therefore, we estimate that, assuming manufacturers would be conducting the dynamic test specified in the proposed rule (or a similar test) to certify their child restraints to the new side impact requirements, overall they would conduct 196 sled tests for the current 96 models available in the market, for an annual testing cost of $254,800. This testing cost, distributed among the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually, with an 97 This is because only a small percentage of children in this weight range are restrained in beltpositioning seats. A Safe Kids USA survey in the first quarter of 2012 at Child Passenger Safety Technician (CPST) seat check stations indicated that only 10 percent of children in the weight range 13.6–18 kg (30–40 lb) were in belt-positioning seats. 98 This estimate assumes that the proposed changes will have the same level of effectiveness in preventing injuries to children in misused seats as estimated for children in properly used seats. 99 https://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/ VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4597 average model life of 5 years, is less than $0.01 per CRS. XVII. Effective Date The agency is proposing a lead time of 3 years from date of publication of the final rule. This means that CRSs manufactured on or after the date 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule must meet the side impact requirements. We propose to permit optional early compliance with the requirements beginning soon after the date of publication of the final rule. Note that section 31501 of MAP–21 states that not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act (which was July 6, 2012), the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 regarding side impact protection. Section 31505 of MAP–21 states that if the Secretary determines that any deadline for issuing a final rule under the Act cannot be met, the Secretary shall provide an explanation for why such deadline cannot be met and establish a new deadline for the rule. We believe there is good cause for providing 3 years lead time. CRS manufacturers will have to gain familiarity with the new test procedures and the new Q3s dummy, assess their products’ conformance to the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test, and possibly incorporate changes into their designs. We believe that 3 years lead time would give manufacturers sufficient time to design CRSs that comply with the side impact requirements. XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation’s regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is considered ‘‘significant’’ and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ The NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for child restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). The proposal would specify a side impact test in which the child restraints must protect the occupant in a dynamic test simulating a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact. The side impact test would be additional to the current frontal impact tests of FMVSS No. 213. We estimate that the annual cost of the proposed rule would be E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4598 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 approximately $3.7 million. The countermeasures may include larger wings (side structure) and padding with energy-absorption characteristics that have a retail cost of approximately $0.50 per CRS.100 We estimate that the proposed rule would prevent 5.2 fatalities and 64 MAIS 1–5 non-fatal injuries annually. The annual net benefits are estimated to be $162.0 million (7 percent discount rate) to $178.9 million (3 percent discount rate). In developing this NPRM, NHTSA has considered HIC15 requirements of 400 and 800 as alternatives to the preferred proposal of HIC15 = 570.101 The PRIA accompanying this NPRM provides an assessment of benefits and costs of the HIC15 = 400 and 800 alternatives. Of the alternatives presented for HIC15, NHTSA’s preferred alternative is an injury threshold of 570. We tentatively conclude that this threshold value achieves a reasonable balance of practicability, safety, and cost. The HIC15 = 570 threshold is used in FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’ for the 3-year-old child dummy. It is a scaled threshold based on FMVSS No. 208’s criterion for the 50th percentile adult male dummy, which was adjusted to the 3-year-old using a process that accounts for differences in geometric size and material strength. HIC15 of 570 corresponds to an 11 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury and a 1.6 percent risk of fatality. We tentatively conclude that the 570 scaled maximum would protect children in child restraints from an unreasonable risk of fatality and serious injury in side impacts. Comparing the three alternatives (at the 7 percent discount rate), we find that an 800 HIC15 limit results in: (a) Many fewer equivalent lives saved than the proposed 570 HIC15 limit (7.24 vs. 100 The agency believes that the cost of a compliance test (estimated at $1,300) spread over the number of units sold of that child restraint model is very small, especially when compared to the price of a child restraint. We estimate that 96 CRS models comprise the 5.5 million rear-facing CRSs and forward-facing convertible and combination CRSs (designed for children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb)) sold annually, which have an average model life of 5 years. Therefore, the annual cost of testing new CRS models would be $254,800. This testing cost distributed among the 5.5 million CRSs sold annually would be less than $0.01 per CRS. 101 The agency analyzed different values for HIC 15 because head injuries are the major cause of fatalities of children in side impacts. Real word data of side impacts involving CRS-restrained children indicate that 55–68 percent of MAIS 2+ injuries are to the head, while only 22–29 percent are to the chest. We determined that changes in the HIC15 injury threshold would have a significantly higher effect on the benefit/costs resulting from this rulemaking than would changes to the chest deflection injury threshold. For this reason, alternatives to the proposed chest deflection injury threshold (23 mm) were not examined. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 18.26); (b) higher cost per equivalent life saved ($488,000 vs. $242,000); and, (c) lower net benefits ($63 million vs. $162 million). Thus, on all three measures, 800 HIC15 appears inferior to the proposed 570 HIC15. The 400 HIC15 alternative results in: (a) More equivalent lives saved than the proposed 570 HIC15 limit (28.87 vs. 18.26); higher cost per equivalent life saved ($314,000 vs. $242,000); and, (c) higher net benefits ($250 million vs. $162 million). Thus, on two of the three measures, at first glance 400 HIC15 has appeal compared to the proposed 570 HIC15 limit. However, the agency’s preferred alternative is 570 HIC15 because we are concerned about the effect of a 400 HIC15 limit on child restraint design and use. In the analysis we performed for this NPRM, we assumed that padding alone would be insufficient to meet a 400 HIC15 limit; we assumed that the 6 child restraints we tested would need a theoretical kind of structural improvement to the side of the seats to meet a 400 HIC15 limit. However, we have not proven out that the structural improvements we assumed would in fact be enough to meet the 400 HIC15 limit. Thus, there is some uncertainty on the agency’s part whether the structural modifications can be implemented to meet the 400 HIC15 criterion at the cost we assumed. We also believe that another means of meeting a 400 HIC15 limit would be to increase the thickness of the padding used in the child restraint. We are concerned that thicker padding around the head area could reduce the space provided for the child’s head, which may make the child restraint seem, to parents and other caregivers, too confining for the child. The restricted space for the child’s head could in fact reduce the ability of the seated child to move his or her head freely. Those factors could affect acceptability and use of the harness-equipped ageappropriate child restraints by consumers. Alternatively, if manufacturers decided to increase the thickness of the padding in the head area and widen the CRS to retain the current space between the child’s head and side padding, the child restraint would have to be made wider and heavier. Again, this might affect the overall use of the child restraint. Considering all of these factors, NHTSA has chosen 570 HIC15 as the best overall proposal with known consequences that can be met with a reasonable thickness of padding alone. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification. I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of which are small businesses. Based on our fleet testing, we believe that most of the CRSs that would be subject to the proposed side impact requirements would meet the proposed requirements without a need to modify the CRS. For rear-facing infant seats and forwardfacing restraints with harnesses that need to be modified, the agency estimates that the average incremental costs to each child restraint system would be only $0.50 per unit to meet the proposed rule. This incremental cost would not constitute a significant economic impact. Further, the incremental cost is not significant compared to the retail price of a child restraint system for infants and toddlers, which is in the range of $45 to $350. These incremental costs, which are very small compared to the overall price of the child restraint, can ultimately be passed on to the purchaser. For belt-positioning seats that do not meet the proposed side impact requirements, the simplest course for a manufacturer would be to re-label the restraint so that it is marketed for children not in a weight class that would subject the CRS to the proposed requirements. That is, the CRSs could be marketed as belt-positioning seats for children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb), instead of for children weighing above 13.6 kg (30 lb).102 The agency believes that the cost of conducting the test described in the proposed rule (estimated at $1,300) spread over the number of units sold of that child restraint model would be very small, especially when compared to the 102 Currently, FMVSS No. 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending belt-positioning seats for children weighing less than 13.6 kg (30 lb). E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules price of a child restraint. We estimate that 96 CRS models comprise the 7.42 million rear-facing CRSs and forwardfacing convertible and combination CRSs sold annually. The average model life is estimated to be 5 years. Therefore, we estimate that, assuming manufacturers would be conducting the dynamic test specified in the proposed rule (or a similar test) to certify their child restraints to the new side impact requirements, the annual cost of testing new CRS models would be $254,800. This testing cost, distributed among the 7.42 million CRSs sold annually with an average model life of 5 years, would be less than $0.01 per CRS. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today’s proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any nonidentical 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer’s compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard— the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency’s ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today’s proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today’s proposed rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4599 Civil Justice Reform With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we propose no ‘‘collections of information’’ (as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)). National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)(Public Law 104–113), all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. As explained above in this preamble, NHTSA reviewed the procedures and E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 4600 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules regulations developed globally to dynamically test child restraints in the side impact environment. Except for the Takata test procedure, the procedures and regulations did not replicate all of the dynamic elements of a side crash that we sought to include in the side impact test or were not sufficiently developed for further consideration. NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213 but did not find it acceptable, mainly because that it does not simulate the intruding door, which we believe is an important component in the side impact environment. In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not account for a longitudinal component, which we also believe to be an important characteristic of a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA’s 2002 ANPRM, supra, was based on AS/NZS 1754. Commenters to the ANPRM believed that a dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle intrusion into the occupant compartment.) Australia’s CREP test also was limited by its lack of an intruding door, which is a component that is important in the side impact environment. Germany’s ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. While the ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and intrusion experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its limitations is that the angular velocity of the hinged door is difficult to control, which results in poor repeatability. In addition, these methods do not include a longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which is present in most side impacts and which, we believe, should be replicated in the FMVSS No. 213 test. NHTSA considered the EU’s test procedure but decided not to pursue it, since the test is of lower severity than the crash conditions we wanted to replicate and of lower severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test of a small passenger vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX attachments, which are not available on CRSs in the U.S. Further, the sliding anchors do not seem to produce a representative interaction between the door and CRS during a side impact, and may introduce variability in the test results. The NPACS consumer program is still undergoing development and the details of the sled test procedure and dummies are not available. We note that NHTSA has based the side impact test proposal on a test procedure that was developed by Takata, a manufacturer in the restraint industry. By so doing, NHTSA has saved agency resources by making use VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 of pertinent technical information that is already available. We believe this effort to save resources is consistent with the Act’s goal of reducing when possible the agency’s cost of developing its own standards. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2010 results in $136 million (110.993/81.606 = 1.36). This NPRM would not result in a cost of $136 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA. Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation) The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part: The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. NHTSA requests public comment on the ‘‘regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments’’ concerning the subject matter of this rulemaking. In the discussion above on the NTTAA, we have noted that we have reviewed the procedures and regulations developed globally to test child restraints dynamically in the side impact environment, and found the Takata test procedure to be the most suitable for our purposes. Comments are requested on the above policy statement and the implications it has for this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Regulation Identifier Number The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: • Have we organized the material to suit the public’s needs? • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn’t clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us with your views. XIX. Public Participation In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this proposed rule. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule, but request comments on specific issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: —Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible. —Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views. —If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. —Tell us which parts of the proposal you support, as well as those with which you disagree. —Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. —Offer specific alternatives. —Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections. —Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your comments. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto https://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB’s guidelines may be accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the docket. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.) ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Will the Agency consider late comments? We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 (https:// regulations.gov). Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478). List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 571 as set forth below. PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 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 paragraph (k)(5), and by revising paragraph (l)(3), to read as follows: ■ § 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference. * * * * * (k) * * * (5) Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213—Side impact No. NHTSA–213– 2011,’’ dated June 2012, into § 571.213a. * * * * * (l) * * * (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Tests,’’ revised June 1980, into §§ 571.213; 571.213a; 571.218. * * * * * ■ 3. Section 571.213 is amended by adding paragraph S5(g) to read as follows: § 571.213 systems. Standard No. 213; Child restraint * * * S5 * * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00033 * * * * Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4601 (g) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured for use in motor vehicles, that is recommended for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds), shall meet the requirements in this standard and the additional side impact protection requirements in Standard No. 213a (§ 571.213a). Excepted from Standard No. 213a are harnesses and car beds. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 571.213a is added to read as follows: § 571.213a Standard No. 213a; Child restraint systems—side impact protection. S1. Scope. This standard specifies side impact protection requirements for child restraint systems recommended for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kilograms (kg) ((40 pounds (lb)). S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle side impacts. S3. Application. This standard applies to add-on child restraint systems, except for harnesses and car beds, that are recommended for use by children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb), or by children in a height range that includes children whose height is not greater than 1100 millimeters. S4. Definitions. Add-on child restraint system means any portable child restraint system. Belt-positioning seat means a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child’s torso in a forward impact. Car bed means a child restraint system designed to restrain or position a child in the supine or prone position on a continuous flat surface. Child restraint anchorage system is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (§ 571.225). Child restraint system is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 213 (§ 571.213). Contactable surface means any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1. Harness means a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar material, and that does not E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules include a rigid seating structure for the child. Rear-facing child restraint system means a child restraint system that positions a child to face in the direction opposite to the normal (forward) direction of travel of the motor vehicle. Seat orientation reference line or SORL means the horizontal line through Point Z as illustrated in Figure 1. Tether anchorage is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (§ 571.225). Tether strap is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (§ 571.225). Torso means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the child restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy. S5. Requirements. (a) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall meet the requirements in this section when, as specified, tested in accordance with S6 and this paragraph. Each child restraint system shall meet the requirements at each of the restraint’s seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the restraint is oriented in the forward or rearward direction recommended by the manufacturer pursuant to S5.6 of FMVSS No. 213 (§ 571.213), and tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of this section. (b) Each child restraint system subject to this section shall also meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213 (§ 571.213). S5.1 Dynamic performance. S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 6 mm (1⁄4 inch) or surfaces with protrusions greater than 9 mm (3⁄8 inch) above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the child restraint system. (b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2). (2)(i) Subject to paragraph (b)(2)(ii), a rear-facing child restraint system may have a means for repositioning the seating surface of the system that allows the system’s occupant to move from a reclined position to an upright position VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 and back to a reclined position during testing. (ii) No opening that is exposed and is larger than 6 mm (1⁄4 inch) before the testing shall become smaller during the testing as a result of the movement of the seating surface relative to the child restraint system as a whole. (c) If a front facing child restraint system, not allow the angle between the system’s back support surfaces for the child and the system’s seating surface to be less than 45 degrees at the completion of the test. S5.1.2 Injury criteria. When tested in accordance with S6.1 and with the test dummy specified in S7, each child restraint system that, in accordance with S5.5.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), is recommended for use by children whose mass is more than 10 kg shall— (a) Limit the resultant acceleration at the location of the accelerometer mounted in the test dummy head such that, for any two points in time, t1 and t2, during the event which are separated by not more than a 15 millisecond time interval and where t1 is less than t2, the maximum calculated head injury criterion (HIC) shall not exceed 570, determined using the resultant head acceleration at the center of gravity of the dummy head as expressed as a multiple of g (the acceleration of gravity), calculated using the expression: (b) The maximum chest compression (or deflection) from the output of the thoracic InfraRed Telescoping Rod for Assessment of Chest Compression (IR– TRACC) shall not exceed 23 millimeters. S5.1.3 Occupant containment. When tested in accordance with S6.1 and the requirements specified in this section, each child restraint system recommended for use by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 10 kg (22 lb), shall retain the test dummy’s head such that there is no direct contact of the head to any part of the side impact seat assembly described in S6.1.1(a). S5.1.4 Protrusion limitation. Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 9 mm (3⁄8 inch) and no PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 exposed edge with a radius of less than 6 mm (1⁄4 inch). S5.1.5 Belt buckle release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with the appropriate sections of S6.2, after the dynamic test of S6.1, release when a force of not more than 71 N is applied. (b) Not release during the testing specified in S6.1. S6. Test conditions and procedures. S6.1 Dynamic side impact test for child restraint systems. The test conditions and test procedure for the dynamic side impact test are specified in S6.1.1 and S6.1.2, respectively. S6.1.1 Test conditions. (a) Test device. (1) The test device is a side impact seat assembly (SISA) consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat, with one seating position, and a simulated door assembly as described in Drawing Package, ‘‘NHTSA Standard Seat Assembly; FMVSS No. 213—Side impact No. NHTSA–213–2011,’’ dated June 2012 (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5). The simulated door assembly is rigidly attached to the floor of the SISA and the simulated vehicle bench seat is mounted on rails to allow it to move relative to the floor of the SISA in the direction perpendicular to the SORL. The SISA is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that the SORL of the seat is 10 degrees from the perpendicular direction of the test platform travel. The SISA is rotated counterclockwise if the impact side is on the left of the seating position and clockwise if the impact side is on the right of the seating position. (2) As illustrated in the SISA drawing package, attached to the SISA is a child restraint anchorage system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225 (§ 571.225). (b) Accelerate the test platform to achieve a relative velocity (V0) of 31.3 ± 0.8 km/h in the direction perpendicular to the SORL between the SISA bench seat and the door assembly at the time they come in contact (time = T0). The front face of the armrest on the door is 32 ± 2 mm from the edge of the seat towards the SORL at time = T0. The test platform velocity in the direction perpendicular to the SORL is not greater than V0 and not less than V0 – 1 km/h during the time of interaction of the door with the child restraint system. (c) The change in velocity of the bench seat is 31.3 ± 1.0 km/h and the bench seat acceleration perpendicular to E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.009</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 4602 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules the SORL is within the corridor shown in Figure 3. (d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent. (e) The child restraint shall meet the requirements of S5 at each of its seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing positions, when the restraint is oriented in the direction recommended by the manufacturer (e.g., forward or rearward) pursuant to S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), and tested with the test dummy specified in S7 of this section. S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure. (a) The child restraint centerline is positioned 300 mm from the SISA bench seat edge (impact side) and attached in any of the following manners. (1) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), except as provided in this paragraph. For forward-facing restraints, attach the tether strap, if provided, to the tether anchorage on the SISA. No other supplemental device to attach the child restraint is used. Tighten belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N. (2) For rear-facing restraints, install the child restraint system using only the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device) is used. Tighten belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N. (3) For belt-positioning seats, use the lap and shoulder belt and no tether or any other supplemental device. (b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing child restraint systems for use by children of the heights and weights for which the system is recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared as specified in S8 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate. (c) The dummy is placed and positioned in the child restraint system as specified in S9. Attach the child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the system, if appropriate, as specified in S9. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 (d) Belt adjustment. Shoulder and pelvic belts that directly restrain the dummy are adjusted as follows: Tighten the belt system used to restrain the child within the child restraint system to a tension of not less than 9 N on the webbing at the top of each dummy shoulder and the pelvic region. Tighten the belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N. For belt-positioning seats, the lap portion of the lap and shoulder belt is tightened to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N. The shoulder portion is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N and not more than 18 N. (e) Accelerate the test platform in accordance with S6.1.1(b). (f) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with SAE J211 JUN80 (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5). S6.2 Buckle release test procedure. (a) After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and before the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each wrist and ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), without disturbing the belted dummy and the child restraint system. (b) Pull the sling that is tied to the dummy restrained in the child restraint system and apply the following force: 90 N for a system tested with a 12-monthold dummy; 200 N for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy. For an addon child restraint, the force is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) and by pulling the sling horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the SISA. (c) While applying the force specified in S6.2 (b), and using the device shown in Figure 8 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) for pushbutton-release buckles, apply the release force in the manner and location specified in S6.2.1, for that type of buckle. Measure the force required to release the buckle. S7 Test dummies. (Subparts referenced in this section are of part 572 of this chapter.) S7.1 Dummy selection. At NHTSA’s option, any dummy specified in S7.1(a) or S7.1(b) may be selected for testing child restraint systems for use by children of the height and mass for which the system is recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). A child restraint that meets the criteria in two or more of the following paragraphs may be tested with any of the test dummies specified in those paragraphs. (a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4603 accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 10 kg (22 lb), or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 650 mm but not greater than 850 mm, is tested with a 12-month-old test dummy (CRABI) conforming to part 572 subpart R. (b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213) for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 10 kg (22 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb), or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is tested with a 3-year-old test dummy (Q3s) conforming to part 572 subpart W. S8 Dummy clothing and preparation. S8.1 Type of clothing. (a) 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R). When used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart R, is clothed in a cotton-polyester based tight fitting sweat shirt with long sleeves and ankle long pants whose combined weight is not more than 0.25 kg. (b) 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart W). When used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart W, is clothed as specified in that subpart, except without shoes. S8.2 Preparing dummies. Before being used in testing under this standard, test dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature from 20.6° to 22.2 °C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours. S9 Positioning the dummy and attaching the belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and/or to attach the system to the SISA bench seat. S9.1 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R). Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the manufacturer provided with the child restraint system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), while conforming to the following: (a) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the 12-monthold dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the system. Attach all appropriate child E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4604 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA bench seat and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. (b) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the dummy’s arms vertically upwards and then rotate each arm downward toward the dummy’s lower body until the arm contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the SISA. Ensure that no arm is restrained from movement in other than the downward direction, by any part of the system or the belts used to anchor the system to the SISA bench seat. (c) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems, extend the arms of the 12-month-old test dummy as far as possible in the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the test dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a flat square surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the back of the standard seat assembly, first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. Attach all appropriate child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA bench seat and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c), rotate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy’s midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat assembly. Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in tests conducted under S6. S9.2 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart W) in forward-facing child restraints. Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 the restraint manufacturer provided with the child restraint system in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), while conforming to the following: (a) Holding the test dummy torso upright until it contacts the child restraint system’s design seating surface, place the test dummy in the seated position within the child restraint system with the midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of the child restraint system. (b) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs. (c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the back of the SISA first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface, position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). For forward-facing restraints, attach all appropriate child restraint belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA or to restrain the child and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. For beltpositioning seats, attach all appropriate vehicle belts used to restrain the child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). (c) After the steps specified in paragraph (b) of this section, rotate each of the dummy’s legs downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy’s midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint or the SISA. Rotate each of the dummy’s arms downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy’s midsagittal plane until the arm is positioned at a 25 degree angle with respect to the thorax. S9.3 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart W) in PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 rear-facing child restraints. Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint manufacturer provided with the child restraint system in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213), while conforming to the following: (a) Extend the arms of the test dummy as far as possible in the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the center line of the lower legs. (b) Place the Q3s dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the system. Place the test dummy in the child restraint system with the midsagittal plane of the test dummy head coincident with the center of the child restraint system. Rotate each of the dummy’s legs downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy’s midsagittal plane until the leg or feet of the dummy contacts the seat back of the SISA or a surface of the child restraint system. (c) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square millimeters, apply a force of 178 N, perpendicular to the plane of the back of the SISA bench seat first against the dummy crotch and then at the dummy thorax in the midsagittal plane of the dummy. For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface, position each movable surface in accordance with the instructions that the manufacturer provided under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (§ 571.213). Attach all appropriate child restraint belts for use to restrain a child within the child restraint system and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2(d). Attach all appropriate belts used to attach the child restraint system to the SISA and tighten them as specified in S6.1.2. (d) After the steps specified in paragraph (c) of this section, rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy’s midsagittal plane until the limb is positioned at a 25 degree angle with respect to the thorax. E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4605 EP28JA14.010</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.011</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 4606 VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 4607 EP28JA14.012</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4608 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules Issued on: January 22, 2014. Christopher J. Bonanti, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2014–01568 Filed 1–23–14; 4:15 pm] VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:42 Jan 27, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28JAP3.SGM 28JAP3 EP28JA14.013</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4569-4608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01568]

[[Page 4569]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 18

January 28, 2014

Part III

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems, Child
Restraint Systems--Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by Reference;
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 4570]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0012]
RIN 2127-AK95

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems,
Child Restraint Systems--Side Impact Protection, Incorporation by
Reference

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' to adopt side
impact performance requirements for all child restraint systems
designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up to
18 kilograms (kg) (40 pounds (lb)). NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to
ensure that child restraints provide a minimum level of protection in
side impacts by effectively restraining the child, preventing harmful
head contact with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint
structure, and by attenuating crash forces to the child's head and
chest.
This NPRM is also issued toward fulfillment of a statutory mandate
set forth in the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act''
(July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a
final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children
seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014.
Proposed compliance date: We propose that the compliance date for
the amendments in this rulemaking action would be three years following
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Optional early compliance would be 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 https://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.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
You may also call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.

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). Mailing address: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Statutory Mandate
III. The Existing Standard
IV. Summary of Proposed Amendments
V. Guiding Principles
VI. Potentially Affected Child Restraints
VII. Real World Analysis
VIII. Past NHTSA Efforts
IX. Side Impact Program Developments
a. Side Impact Environment for Children
b. Injury Mechanisms in Side Impact
c. Global Dynamic Side Impact Tests
d. Side Impact Test Dummy
X. Developing NHTSA's Side Impact Test
a. Assessment of Existing Global Efforts
b. Takata Test Procedure
XI. The Proposed Test Procedure
a. Sled Kinematic Parameters
1. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile (Representing the Struck
Vehicle)
2. Door Velocity
3. Sled Buck Angle (Replicating Longitudinal Component of the
Direction of Force)
b. Rear Seat Environment Parameters
1. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness
2. Rear Seat Door Stiffness
3. Rear Seat Environment Geometry
c. Dynamic Validation of the Sled Test
XII. Proposed Dynamic Performance
a. Q3s Dummy
b. CRABI Dummy
c. Energy Absorption and Distribution
XIII. Fleet Testing
a. Q3s Dummy
b. CRABI Dummy
XIV. Countermeasure Assessment
XV. Petition Regarding Deceleration Sled System
XVI. Costs and Benefits
XVII. Effective Date
XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
XIX. Public Participation

This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint
systems,'' to adopt side impact performance requirements for all child
restraint systems designed to seat children in a weight range that
includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). Frontal and side crashes account
for most child occupant fatalities. Standard No. 213 currently requires
child restraints to meet a dynamic test simulating a 48.3 kilometers
per hour (30 miles per hour) frontal impact. Today's proposal would
require an additional test in which such child restraints must protect
the child occupant in a dynamic test simulating a full-scale vehicle-
to-vehicle side impact.
Child restraints would be tested with a newly-developed
instrumented side impact test dummy representing a 3-year-old child,
called the Q3s dummy, and with a well-established 12-month-old child
test dummy (the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy).
NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that child restraints provide a
minimum level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining
the child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle
door or child restraint structure, and by attenuating crash forces to
the child's head and chest.
This NPRM is also issued toward fulfillment of a statutory mandate
set forth in the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act''
(July 6, 2012), directing the Secretary of Transportation to issue a
final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children
seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.

I. Executive Summary

Impacts to the side of a vehicle rank almost equal to frontal
crashes as a source of occupant fatalities and serious injuries to
children ages 0 to 12. Side impacts are especially dangerous when the
impact is on the passenger compartment because, unlike a frontal or
rear-end crash, there are no substantial, crushable metal structures
between the occupant and the impacting vehicle or object. The door
collapses into the passenger compartment and the occupants contact the
door relatively

[[Page 4571]]

quickly after the crash at a high relative velocity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Kahane, November 1982, NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 806 314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a vehicle-to-vehicle side impact crash, the striking vehicle
first interacts with the door structure of the struck vehicle and
commences crushing the door and intruding laterally into the vehicle
compartment. Second, the striking vehicle engages the sill of the
struck vehicle and begins to push the struck vehicle away. At this
time, the occupant sitting in the vehicle experiences the struck
vehicle seat moving away from the impacting vehicle while the door
intrudes towards him or her. Next, the occupant interacts with the
intruding door, after which the occupant is accelerated away from the
door until the occupant reaches the velocity of the struck and striking
vehicle.
Passenger vehicles provide protection in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes
by meeting FMVSS No. 214, ``Side impact protection.'' FMVSS No. 214
requires passenger vehicles to provide side impact protection in
several different side crashes. In a full-scale crash test representing
a severe intersection collision between two passenger vehicles, FMVSS
No. 214 requires passenger vehicles to protect occupants when the
vehicle is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB)
simulating an impacting vehicle.\2\ The FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test
involves an MDB weighing 1,360 kg (3,000 lb), to represent a vehicle
which is traveling at 48.3 kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per
hour (mph)) striking the side of another vehicle which is traveling at
24 km/h (15 mph).\3\ The struck vehicle must limit the potential for
injuries to an occupant's head, thorax, and pelvis, as measured by test
dummies seated in the front outboard seat and rear outboard seat on the
struck side of the vehicle (``near side'' positions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ FMVSS No. 214 also specifies a static laboratory test that
has greatly improved side door strength and protection against side
impacts with fixed objects. The static test has resulted in
manufacturers reinforcing side doors with a horizontal beam. In
addition, FMVSS No. 214 specifies a full-scale side crash test of a
vehicle into a pole, which has resulted in the installation of side
air bags to protect against head and chest injuries.
\3\ In the FMVSS No. 214 test, only the striking ``vehicle,''
represented by the MDB, is moving. Using vector analysis, the agency
combined the impact speed and impact angle data in crash files to
determine that the dynamics and forces of a crash in which a vehicle
traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) perpendicularly strikes the side of
a vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph) could be represented by a
test configuration in which: The test vehicle is stationary; the
longitudinal centerline of the MDB is perpendicular to the
longitudinal centerline of the test vehicle; the front and rear
wheels of the MDB are crabbed at an angle of 27 degrees to the right
of its longitudinal centerline in a left side impact and to the left
of that centerline in a right side impact; and the MDB moves at that
angle and at a speed of 54 km/h (33.5 mph) into the side of the
struck vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's NPRM proposes a side impact test that simulates the two-
vehicle side crash replicated by the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test of a small
passenger car. Today's proposal would require all child restraint
systems (CRSs) designed to seat children in a weight range that
includes weights up to18 kg (40 lb) to meet specific performance
criteria in a dynamic sled test that simulates the MDB test (striking
vehicle traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph) impacting the struck vehicle
traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph)). Approximately 92 percent of side
crashes involving restrained children are of equivalent or lower crash
severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash test of a small passenger
car.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Obtained from an analysis of the National Automotive
Sampling System--Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data files
for the years 1995-2009 for restrained children 0 to 12 YO in all
restraint environments including seat belts and CRS. Details of the
analysis are provided in the technical report in the docket for this
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed sled test is the first of its kind in the world for
testing child restraints in a sled system that simulates the vehicle
acceleration and intruding door of a small passenger car in a side
impact (a vehicle-to-vehicle intersection crash). We do not have
sufficient data to determine what share of covered crashes involve an
intruding door, however door intrusion is a causative factor for
moderate and serious injury to children in side impacts. Child
restraints would be tested in the side impact sled test with the Q3s
instrumented side impact test dummy representing the size and weight of
a 3-year-old (3 YO) child, and with the CRABI dummy representing a 12-
month-old (12 MO) infant. NHTSA has previously published an NPRM
proposing to amend our regulation for anthropomorphic test devices, 49
CFR Part 572, to add specifications for the Q3s (78 FR 69944; November
21, 2013). The CRABI dummy's specifications are incorporated into 49
CFR Part 572, Subpart R.
NHTSA is issuing this NPRM to ensure that subject child restraints
provide a minimum level of protection in side impacts. The CRSs would
have to effectively restrain the child, prevent harmful head contact
with an intruding vehicle door or child restraint structure, and
attenuate crash forces to the child's chest. Injury criteria (expressed
in terms of a head injury criterion (HIC) and chest deflection) are
proposed for the Q3s. These criteria allow a quantitative evaluation of
the effectiveness of the CRS to prevent or attenuate head and chest
impact with the intruding door. The 12 MO CRABI would be used to
measure the containment capability of the CRS (the ability to prevent
the dummy's head from making contact with the intruding door of the
sled assembly). In addition, CRSs would be required to meet other
structural integrity requirements in the sled test that ensure a sound
level of performance in side impacts.
We estimate that a final rule resulting from this proposal would
reduce 5.2 fatalities and 64 non-fatal injuries (MAIS \5\ 1-5) annually
(see Table 1 below).\6\ The equivalent lives and the monetized benefits
were estimated in accordance with guidance issued February 28, 2013 by
the Office of the Secretary \7\ regarding the treatment of value of a
statistical life in regulatory analyses. A final rule resulting from
this proposal is estimated to save 18.26 equivalent lives annually. The
monetized annual benefits of the proposed rule at 3 and 7 percent
discount rates are $182.6 million and $165.7 million, respectively
(Table 2). We estimate that the annual cost of this proposed rule would
be approximately $3.7 million. The countermeasures may include larger
wings and padding with energy absorption characteristics that cost, on
average, approximately $0.50 per CRS designed for children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 40 lb (both forward-facing and rear-
facing) (Table 3 below). The annual net benefits are estimated to be
$162.0 million (7 percent discount rate) to $178.9 million (3 percent
discount rate) as shown in Table 4. Because the proposed rule is cost
beneficial just by comparing costs to monetized economic benefits, and
there is a net benefit, we are not providing a net cost per equivalent
life saved since no value would be provided by such an estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ MAIS (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale) represents the
maximum injury severity of an occupant based on the Abbreviated
Injury Scale (AIS). AIS ranks individual injuries by body region on
a scale of 1 to 6: 1 = minor, 2 = moderate, 3 = serious, 4 = severe,
5 = critical, and 6 = maximum (untreatable). MAIS 3+ injuries
represent MAIS injuries at an AIS level of 3, 4, 5, or 6.
\6\ NHTSA has developed a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
(PRIA) that discusses issues relating to the potential costs,
benefits, and other impacts of this regulatory action. The PRIA is
available in the docket for this NPRM and may be obtained by
downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or
telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.
\7\ https://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf.

[[Page 4572]]

Table 1--Estimated Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities................................................. 5.2
Non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1 to 5)........................... 64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 Estimated Monetized Benefits
[In millions of 2010 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of
Economic statistical Total benefits
benefits life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate......................................... $16.0 $166.6 $182.6
7 Percent Discount Rate......................................... 14.4 151.3 165.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Estimated Costs (2010 Economics)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost per CRS designed for children $0.50
in a weight range that includes weights
up to 40 lb.
-----------------------------
Total annual cost..................... 3.7 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4--Annualized Costs and Benefits
[In millions of 2010 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Annualized
costs benefits Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate................................................ $3.7 $182.6 $178.9
7% Discount Rate................................................ 3.7 165.7 162.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accident data indicate that CRSs designed for children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) are generally already
remarkably effective in reducing the risk of death and serious injury
in side impacts. We have observed in recent years that increasing
numbers of these CRSs appear to have more side structure coverage (CRS
side ``wings'') and side padding than before.\8\ Because the design of
the side wings and stiffness of the padding are factors that affect the
containment of the child dummy and the injury measures, we consider the
side wing coverage and increased padding to be overall positive
developments. Yet, because FMVSS No. 213 currently does not have a side
impact test, a quantifiable assessment of the protective qualities of
the features was heretofore not possible. Today's NPRM would establish
performance requirements that ensure that the wings, padding, padding-
like features, or other countermeasures employed in recent years
reportedly to provide protection in side impacts will in fact achieve a
minimum level of performance that will reduce the risk of injury or
fatality in side impacts. For CRS designs that have not yet
incorporated side impact protection features, today's NPRM is the first
step toward ensuring that they will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. https://www.carseat.org/Pictorial/InfantPict,1-11.pdf and https://www.carseat.org/Pictorial/3-Five-%20Point-np.pdf. Last accessed January 24, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Mandate

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21), P.L. 112-141. Subtitle E
of MAP-21, entitled ``Child Safety Standards,'' includes section
31501(a) which states that, not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule amending
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 to improve the
protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side
impact crashes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Subtitle E also includes provisions for commencing a
rulemaking to amend the standard seat assembly specifications in
FMVSS No. 213 to better simulate a single representative motor
vehicle rear seat (section 31501(b)), and initiating a rulemaking to
amend FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' to
improve the ease of use of lower anchorages and tethers (section
31502(a)). The agency anticipates dealing with these provisions in
future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We interpret this provision of MAP-21 as providing us a fair amount
of discretion. NHTSA informed Congress in 2004 that enhanced side
impact protection for children in child restraints was a priority for
NHTSA.\10\ The agency informed Congress that it will continue efforts
to obtain detailed side crash data to identify specific injury
mechanisms involving children and will work on countermeasure
development using test dummies, including the European Q3 dummy then
available, for improved side impact protection. Our current NHTSA
Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan
2011-2013, March 2011,\11\ announced our intention to issue an NPRM in
2012 on child restraint side impact protection. The plan shows that we
were planning to ``[p]ropose test procedures in FMVSS No. 213 to assess
child restraint performance in near-side impacts. Amend Part 572 to add
the Q3s dummy, the 3-year-old side impact version of the Q-series of
child dummies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ NHTSA Report to Congress, ``Child Restraint Systems,
Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation Act,'' February 2004.
www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/NHTSAReports/TREAD.pdf.
\11\ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe that MAP-21's short deadline for issuance of a final
rule indicates that Congress intended for NHTSA to use the existing
state of knowledge gained from our research efforts to initiate and
complete the regulation as the agency had planned. There are no child
test dummies other than the Q3s available at this time that have been
proven sufficiently durable

[[Page 4573]]

and reliable for use in the proposed FMVSS No. 213 side impact testing.
The level and amount of effort needed to further develop and validate a
different test procedure, or new child side impact test dummies, far
exceeds what could be accomplished within the time constraints of the
Act.
Further, MAP-21 requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213, which
means that the rulemaking must be conducted in accordance with the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.)
(``Vehicle Safety Act''). Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the Secretary
of Transportation is authorized to prescribe Federal motor vehicle
safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle
safety, and are stated in objective terms.\12\ ``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.'' \13\ 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.\14\ The
Secretary must also consider the extent to which the standard will
further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and
associated deaths.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\13\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
\14\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have developed a regulation that will improve the protection of
children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts, in
accordance with MAP-21, while meeting the criteria of section 30111 of
the Vehicle Safety Act. We believe that the proposed regulation meets
the need for safety, is stated in objective terms, and is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate. While the language of section 31501(a) of
MAP-21 is broad enough to encompass a large universe of child restraint
systems, there are technical and practical reasons for applying the
dynamic side impact test only to CRSs designed to seat children in a
weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). For one, there
is no side impact dummy representative of children larger than those
represented by the Q3s that can reasonably be used to test CRSs for
children above 18 kg (40 lb) to the dynamic side impact requirements
proposed today. Without an appropriate test dummy, the data from a
dynamic test would not provide a meaningful assessment of the
performance of the CRS in protecting children of weights above 18 kg
(40 lb). In addition, the seated height of children weighing more than
18 kg (40 lb) who are restrained in child restraints is typically
sufficient to take advantage of the vehicle's side impact protection
systems, such as side curtain air bags. Thus, the safety need for
Standard No. 213's dynamic side impact requirements is attenuated for
these CRSs. These reasons are further discussed in a section below, and
are presented for public comment.

III. The Existing Standard

CRSs are highly effective in reducing the likelihood of death or
serious 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 (light
truck).\16\ Child restraint effectiveness for children between the ages
1 to 4 YO is 54 percent in passenger cars and 59 percent in light
trucks. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ ``Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness,''
Research Note, National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT HS
96855, December 1996, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/96855.pdf,
last accessed on May 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most significant dynamic performance requirements of FMVSS No.
213 relevant to this NPRM are briefly described below.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ FMVSS No. 213 also has labeling and owner's manual
requirements for proper use of the CRS, including requirements that
safety warnings be prominently displayed on the CRS. The standard
also includes requirements for the flammability resistance of the
CRS. The standard also establishes an owner-registration program so
that purchasers can register with the manufacturer and be directly
notified in the event of a safety recall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

l. The crash performance of a CRS is evaluated in a frontal dynamic
test involving a 48.3 km/h (30 mph) velocity change, which is
representative of a severe crash. CRSs are tested while attached to a
standardized seat assembly representative of a passenger vehicle seat.
CRSs other than booster seats must meet minimum performance
requirements when anchored to the standard seat assembly with a lap
belt only, or with the lower anchorages of the ``LATCH'' \18\ system.
The CRSs must meet more stringent head excursion requirements in
another test, one in which a top tether, if provided, is permitted to
be attached. Belt-positioning (booster) seats are tested on the
standard seat assembly using a lap and shoulder belt.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, an
acronym developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the
child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for
installation in motor vehicles. LATCH consists of two lower
anchorages, and one upper tether anchorage. Each lower anchorage
includes a rigid round rod or ``bar'' onto which a hook, a jaw-like
buckle or other connector can be snapped. The bars are located at
the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The
upper tether anchorage is a ring-like object to which the upper
tether of a child restraint system can be attached. FMVSS No. 213
requires CRSs to be equipped with attachments that enable the CRS to
attach to the vehicle's LATCH system.
\19\ Built-in CRSs are evaluated by crash testing the vehicle
into which the CRSs are built, or by simulating a crash with the
built-in seat dynamically tested with parts of the vehicle
surrounding it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CRSs are dynamically tested with anthropomorphic test devices
(ATDs) (child test dummies) representative of the children for whom the
CRS is recommended. FMVSS No. 213 specifies the use of ATDs
representing a newborn, a 12 MO infant, a 3 YO, a 6 YO, a weighted 6
YO, and a 10 YO.\20\ Except for the newborn and weighted 6 YO ATDs, the
test dummies are equipped with instrumentation measuring crash forces
imposed on the ATD. The mass, size, and kinematics of the ATDs are
designed to replicate those of a human child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ NHTSA will use the 10 YO child dummy in compliance testing
to test CRSs manufactured on or after February 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. To protect the child, FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to limit the
amount of force that can be exerted on the head and chest of the ATD
during the dynamic test. FMVSS No. 213 also requires CRSs to meet head
excursion limits to reduce the possibility of head injury from contact
with vehicle interior surfaces and ejection, and limits knee excursion.
4. FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to maintain system integrity (i.e.,
not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm a child). The
standard also specifies requirements for the size and shape of
contactable surfaces of the CRS to ensure that surfaces that can harm
on impact are absent, and specifies requirements for the performance of
belts and buckles to make sure that, among other things, a buckle can
be swiftly unlatched after a crash by an adult for expeditious egress
from the crash site but cannot be easily unbuckled by an unsupervised
child.

[[Page 4574]]

IV. Summary of Proposed Amendments

This NPRM proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact
performance requirements for CRSs designed to seat children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). The side impact test
requirements would be specified in a new standard, FMVSS No. ``213a.''
FMVSS No. 213 would be amended to include a requirement that the CRSs
covered by this NPRM must meet the new FMVSS No. 213a in addition to
the requirements established in FMVSS No. 213.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ A final rule could incorporate the proposed requirements
into FMVSS No. 213, rather than in a separate FMVSS No. 213a. This
NPRM shows the proposed requirements separately in FMVSS No. 213a
for plain language purposes and the reader's convenience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most significant amendments proposed by this NPRM are described
below.
1. A dynamic (sled) test would be used to evaluate the performance
of the CRS in a side impact. The sled test was developed based on an
acceleration sled system \22\ developed by Takata. The test procedure
simulates the two-vehicle side crash replicated in the MDB test of
FMVSS No. 214 (striking vehicle traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph))
impacting the struck vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph). The
proposed sled test simulates a near-side side impact of a small
passenger car. It simulates the velocity of the striking vehicle, the
struck vehicle, and an intruding door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ An acceleration sled is accelerated from rest to a
prescribed acceleration profile to simulate the occupant compartment
deceleration in a crash event. In comparison, a ``deceleration
sled'' is first accelerated to a target velocity and then is
decelerated to a prescribed deceleration profile to simulate the
same event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The test buck consists of a sliding ``vehicle'' seat
(representative of a rear seat designated seating position) mounted to
a rail system along with a ``side door'' structure rigidly mounted to
the sled buck structure. The sliding ``vehicle'' seat and side door are
representative of today's passenger vehicles. This ``side impact seat
assembly'' (SISA) proposed for the side impact test is specified by
drawings that have been placed in the docket for today's NPRM. The
sliding vehicle seat is positioned sufficiently away from the side door
to allow the sled to reach a desired velocity (31.3 km/h) prior to the
time the sliding ``vehicle'' seat starts to accelerate to a specific
acceleration profile.
3. Most CRSs would be attached using LATCH to the sliding
``vehicle'' seat of the SISA. CRSs covered by this NPRM that are not
currently required by FMVSS No. 213 to have LATCH attachments (i.e.,
belt-positioning seats) would be tested using a lap and shoulder belt
on the SISA. The center of the CRS is positioned 300 mm from the edge
of the sliding seat next to the intruding door (simulating a near-side
position). At the time the sliding seat starts to accelerate, the
armrest on the door is located 32 mm from the edge of the seat towards
the child restraint system. For forward-facing CRSs with LATCH
attachments, the LATCH lower anchorages and the top tether, if
provided, would be used (assuming the top tether is recommended for use
in motor vehicles by the CRS manufacturer).
4. CRSs recommended for children with weights that include 10 kg to
18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) would be tested on the SISA with an ATD
representing a 3 YO child, referred to as the ``Q3s.'' The Q3s is a
side impact version of the 3 YO child Q-series dummy (Q3), a frontal
crash dummy developed in Europe. CRSs recommended to seat children with
weights up to 10 kg (22 lb) would be tested with the 12 MO CRABI dummy
(49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R).
5. Injury criteria (expressed in terms of HIC15 \23\ and
chest deflection) are proposed for the Q3s. These criteria allow a
quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the CRS, and the
ability of the CRS to prevent or attenuate head and chest impact with
the intruding door. The CRABI would be used to measure the containment
capability (the ability to prevent the ATD's head from contacting the
intruding door of the SISA) of CRSs recommended for children weighing
more than 5 kg (11 lb) and up to 10 kg (22 lb). In addition, CRSs would
be required to meet structural integrity and other requirements
described in item 4 of the previous section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Head injury criterion that is based on the integration of
resultant head acceleration over a 15 millisecond duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Guiding Principles

The following principles guided our decision-making in developing
this NPRM. Several of these principles have guided our past rulemakings
on FMVSS No. 213.
a. NHTSA estimates that CRSs are already 42 percent effective in
preventing death in side crashes of 0 to 3 YO children.\24\ This
estimated degree of effectiveness is high, and is only 11 percentage
points lower than CRS effectiveness in frontal crashes (53 percent),
notwithstanding that FMVSS No. 213 requires CRSs to meet specific
performance requirements in a frontal impact sled test but has no such
dynamic performance requirements in side impact. We believe that the
effectiveness of CRSs in side impact can be attributed to the CRS
harness containing the child in the seating position, thereby
mitigating harmful contact with interior vehicle components, and to the
CRS structure shielding the child from direct impact and absorbing some
of the crash forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ NHTSA conducted an analysis of the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) data files of real world fatal non-rollover
frontal and side crashes of passenger cars and light trucks and vans
involving children for the years 1995 to 2009. From this analysis,
the agency estimated the effectiveness of CRSs in preventing
fatalities among 0 to 3 YO children to be 42 percent in side crashes
and 52 percent in frontal crashes. The analysis method is similar to
that reported in the NCSA Research Note, ``Revised Estimates of
Child Restraint Effectiveness,'' DOT HS 96855 and is also detailed
in the technical report in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. In making regulatory decisions on possible enhancements to CRS
performance, the agency must bear in mind the consumer acceptance of
cost increases to an already highly-effective item of safety equipment.
Any enhancement that would significantly raise the price of the
restraints could potentially have an adverse effect on the sales of
this voluntarily-purchased equipment. 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. Thus, to
maximize the total safety benefits of its efforts on FMVSS No. 213, the
agency must balance those improvements against impacts on the price of
restraints. In addition, NHTSA must also consider the effects of
improved performance on the ease of using child restraints. If the use
of child restraints becomes overly complex or unwieldy, the twin
problems of misuse and nonuse of child restraints could be exacerbated.
c. Estimating the net effect on safety of this rulemaking,
consistent with the principles for regulatory decision-making set forth
in Executive Order (E.O.) 12286, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
and E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' was
limited by several factors. One was that data are sparse on side
crashes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities to children in CRSs.
Data indicate that side crashes resulting in fatalities to children in
CRSs mainly occur in very severe, un-survivable side impact conditions.
A dynamic test involving a very high test speed or intrusion level may
have undesirable impacts on FMVSS No. 213 regarding practicability,
cost, and possible detrimental effects on safety (i.e., the possible
effects on the use of CRSs, discussed above).

[[Page 4575]]

Another limiting factor was there is no information comparing the
real world performance of ``good'' performing CRSs versus ``poor''
performing CRSs. Without these data, we had to use test data and injury
curves to determine the effectiveness of possible countermeasures
(e.g., large side wings with energy absorbing padding). We are also
limited by the unavailability of child ATDs for side impact testing.
Currently, there is only an ATD representing a 3 YO child that has been
specially developed for side impacts. The 12 MO CRABI dummy is a
frontal impact dummy, and can only be used in a limited capacity to
estimate benefits in this side impact rulemaking.
d. In developing this NPRM, we sought to build on the levels of
side impact protection provided by FMVSS No. 214. The sled test
proposed today is based on the FMVSS No. 214 MDB test of a small
passenger car, replicating the real-world side crashes that occur most
frequently today. The proposed sled test set-up is representative of
the side impact environment in which a CRS would be used in today's
vehicles. The environment is based on the rear seat and side door of
vehicles meeting FMVSS No. 214. Children seated in the rear seat are
benefitting from FMVSS No. 214's requirements: Side door beams and door
and sill structure reinforcements prevent intrusion and enable the
vehicle to better manage the crash energy.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Side curtain air bags installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214's
pole test will provide head protection to children who sit high
enough (whether in a CRS or directly on the vehicle seat) to
experience head-to-curtain interaction in a side crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet, due to their size and fragility, infants and toddlers are
dependent on child restraint systems to augment FMVSS No. 214
protection, and to manage the side crash energy further. In developing
this NPRM, our objectives were to ensure that CRSs provide a minimum
level of protection in side impacts by effectively restraining the
child, preventing harmful head contact with an intruding vehicle door
or CRS structure, and by attenuating crashes forces to the child's
chest.
e. This rulemaking is issued in furtherance of MAP-21. MAP-21
requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection
of children seated in child restraint systems during side impact
crashes.

VI. Potentially Affected Child Restraints

Consistent with the principles discussed above, we propose to apply
the side impact test requirements to all CRSs designed to seat children
in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40 lb). Children
in the 0 to 18 kg (40 lb) group (which encompasses children from birth
to about 4 YO) have a high rate of child restraint use (<1 YO = 98
percent and 1 to 3 YO \26\ = 93 percent according to the 2009 National
Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS) \27\), which provides a good
opportunity for improving CRS performance and reducing injuries and
fatalities through a side impact regulation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Note that in survey data a child who is 1 day shy of his or
her 4th birth day is still considered a 3 YO. Therefore survey data
representing 1 to 3 YO children include 3 YO children who are nearly
4 YO and at the 40 lb weight limit representing the weight of a 75th
percentile 4 YO child or an average 5 YO child.
\27\ Pikrell, T.M., Ye, T. Report Number DOT HS 811 377.
September 2010. NSUBS is a probability-based nationwide child
restraint use survey conducted by NHTSA's National Center for
Statistics and Analysis (NCSA).
\28\ Children between 4 and 12 YO have lower child restraint use
(4 to 7 YO = 55 percent and 8 to 12 YO = 6 percent). Data show that
43 percent of 4 to 7 YO and 78 percent of 8 to 12 YO children use
seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe that focusing at this time on the 0 to 18 kg (40 lb) (0
to 4 YO) age group is highly appropriate for several reasons. Real-
world data show that head injuries are the most common injuries in a
side impact environment. According to McCray,\29\ head injuries in
children 1 to 3 YO are slightly higher than for overall children 0 to12
years of age. Possible countermeasures available to CRS manufacturers
to reduce the risk of head injury are the addition of padding or larger
side ``wing'' structures to keep the child's head contained and to
reduce the severity of the impact. It appears from our testing that
energy-absorbing padding added to the CRS around the head area of the
child and to the side structures (CRS side ``wings'') would enable
forward- and rear-facing CRSs to meet the proposed requirements without
adding any additional structures to the seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ McCray, L., Scarboro, M., Brewer, J. ``Injuries to children
one to three years old in side impact crashes,'' 20th International
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2007. Paper Number
07-0186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Focusing on children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO age
group) also appropriately reflects the near-side impact environment in
which CRSs will be used. Our test results indicated that an important
factor in the near side impact environment is the position of the
child's head with respect to the ``beltline'' (also referred to as the
window sill) \30\ of the vehicle door. The sitting height of older
children restrained in CRSs typically positions the head high enough
above the beltline to benefit from the vehicle's FMVSS No. 214 side
impact safety features, such as side window curtain air bags. The need
for a side impact requirement in FMVSS No. 213 may be lessened for
those children. However, when the child's head is below the beltline,
as likely with children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO) in
CRSs, there is greater need for FMVSS No. 213 side impact protection,
as less benefit is attained from the vehicle countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ The beltline of a vehicle is a term used in vehicle design
and styling, referring to the nominally horizontal line below the
side glazing of a vehicle, which separates the glazing area from the
lower body. Passenger vehicles are required to provide head
protection in side impacts and ejection mitigation in rollovers,
pursuant to FMVSS No. 214 and FMVSS No. 226, ``Ejection
mitigation,'' respectively. The countermeasure provided to meet
FMVSS No. 226, usually a side curtain air bag, must meet performance
requirements that, in effect, will necessitate coverage of the side
windows to the beltline of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Importantly also, due to the absence of an array of side impact
child test dummies, we believe that focusing this NPRM on CRSs designed
for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40
lb) best accords with Vehicle Safety Act requirements, which, among
other factors, require each FMVSS to be ``appropriate for the types of
motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.'' \31\ In FMVSS No.
213's frontal crash program, a 3 YO child dummy (weighing 16.3 kg (36
lb)) is considered representative of children weighing 10 kg to 18 kg
(22 to 40 lb), and is used to test CRSs recommended for children
weighing 10 kg to 18 kg (22 to 40 lb). Similarly, we believe that the
Q3s 3 YO side impact test dummy (weighing 14.5 kg (32 lb)) would be an
appropriate test dummy to evaluate CRSs designed for children weighing
10 kg to 18 kg (22 lb to 40 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, currently, the 3 YO child dummy used in the
frontal crash program is not used to test CRSs with regard to
performance in restraining children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb).
This is because the 3 YO test dummy is not considered representative of
children for whom the CRS is recommended. Similarly, we believe that
the Q3s, which has only been made available recently, would not be a
suitable dummy to test the performance of CRSs with respect to children
weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb). The Q3s would not be representative
of children for whom the CRS is recommended, and test data obtained by
use of the ATD would not likely be meaningful as to the performance of
the CRS in restraining

[[Page 4576]]

children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb).
We request comments on the merits of amending FMVSS No. 213 at this
time to improve the protection of children weighing over 18 kg (40 lb),
assessing performance of the CRSs with the Q3s or by other means. We
also seek comments on whether belt-positioning (booster) seats
recommended for older children have design limitations that might
impede their ability to meet the proposed requirements. We have noticed
that some belt-positioning seats for older children are advertised as
providing side impact protection. We ask manufacturers to provide us
information on the methods they use to demonstrate that their side
impact design features for belt-positioning seats do in fact improve
protection in side impacts.
There are a number of different types of child restraints designed
for children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18 kg (40
lb). With regard to belt-positioning (booster) seats recommended for
children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb),\32\ we propose testing the seats
with the Q3s.\33\ The SISA would be equipped with Type II (lap and
shoulder) belts to test the belt-positioning boosters. Belt-positioning
(booster) seats sold for children in a weight range that includes
weights up to 18 kg (40 lb) might have to improve some side wing
structures, but we tentatively believe that the trade-off in possible
increased size of side wing structures and padding and cost of these
belt-positioning seats versus improved side impact protection is
worthwhile for protection of this young child group (children weighing
up to 18 kg (40 lb) (0 to 4 YO age group)). This approach of testing
all CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range that includes
weights up to 18 kg (40 lb), including belt-positioning seats, accords
with MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Currently, FMVSS No. 213 prohibits manufacturers from
recommending belt-positioning seats for children weighing less than
13.6 kg (30 lb).
\33\ This discussion also applies to convertible or front-facing
child restraint systems that are equipped with an internal harness,
that are also sold for use as a belt-positioning booster once the
child reaches a certain weight or height (the consumer is instructed
to remove the harness when using the CRS as a belt-positioning
seat). Under this NPRM, a CRS that is marketed for use as a belt-
positioning seat for children in a weight range that includes
children weighing less than 18 kg (40 lb) would be tested in the
belt-positioning ``mode'' to the side impact requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, we believe that the proposed requirements should
not apply to harnesses. FMVSS No. 213 defines a harness 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 of the
child.'' NHTSA tentatively believes that harnesses should be excluded
because of practicability concerns about the ability of the harness to
meet the proposed requirements and because harnesses serve a need in
certain populations. Harnesses would likely not be able to meet the
proposed performance requirements because they do not have a side
structure that can be reinforced and/or padded to mitigate forces on
the Q3s in the side test. At the same time, we recognize that there is
a niche served by harnesses on certain school buses and special needs
buses, one whose needs cannot be met by any other type of CRS. In
addition, the side impact crash environment of a school bus is
significantly different from that simulated by the proposed sled test
procedure (which simulates a near-side impact of a small passenger
car). Accordingly, we propose excluding harnesses from the proposed
side impact requirements.
Car beds would also be excluded from the proposed requirements. Car
beds do not ``seat'' children but instead restrain or position a child
in a supine or prone position on a continuous flat surface. FMVSS No.
213 requires manufacturers of car beds to provide instructions stating
that the car bed should be positioned in the vehicle such that the
child's head is near the center of the vehicle. We believe that, due to
the supine position and location of the head of the child, the risk of
injury and the injury patterns of children in car beds are much
different from those of children seated forward- or rear-facing. There
is no accident data available that show that benefits would accrue from
applying the proposed side impact protection standard to car beds.

VII. Real World Analysis

The motor vehicle occupant fatality rate among children 4 YO and
younger has declined from 4.5 in 1975 to 1.54 in 2009 (per 100,000
occupants). This decline in fatality rate is partially attributed to
increased use of child restraint systems. The 2009 NSUBS found that
most (92 percent) children 0 to 7 YO were riding in the rear seats of
vehicles and were restrained in CRSs (98 percent of 0 to 1 YO children,
93 percent of 1 to 3 YO children, and 55 percent of 4 to 7 YO
children).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ Tony Jianquiang Ye and Timothy Pickrell, NHTSA, DOT HS 811
377, September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the 2009 FARS data files, there were 33,808 persons
killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009, 322 of whom were children aged
4 and younger killed in passenger vehicle crashes. Among the 322 child
occupant fatalities, 92 (29 percent) were unrestrained, 27 (8 percent)
were restrained by vehicle seat belts, 178 (55 percent) were restrained
in CRSs, and 25 (8 percent) had unknown restraint use.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Children, Traffic Safety Facts--2009 data, DOT HS 811 387,
NHTSA, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811387.pdf, last accessed
August 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1996, the agency estimated the effectiveness of CRSs and found
the devices to reduce fatalities by 71 percent for children younger
than 1 YO and by 54 percent for toddlers 1 to 4 YO in passenger
vehicles.\36\ For today's NPRM, the agency updated the 1996
effectiveness estimates by conducting a similar analysis using the FARS
data files for the years 1995-2009.\37\ In the updated analysis,\38\
only non-rollover frontal and side crashes of passenger cars and LTVs
were considered. (CRS effectiveness was estimated for each crash mode.
Due to small sample size of unrestrained children less than 1 YO, the 0
to 1 YO age group was combined with the 1 to 3 YO age group for
determining CRS effectiveness for each crash mode.) The results
indicate that in non-rollover frontal crashes, CRSs currently in use
are 53 percent effective in preventing fatalities among children 0 to 3
YO and 43 percent effective among children 4 to 7 YO. In non-rollover
side crashes, CRSs currently in use are 42 percent effective in
preventing fatalities among 0 to 3 YO and 51 percent effective among 4
to 7 YO children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ ``Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness,''
Research Note, supra.
\37\ Details of the analysis method are provided in the
supporting technical document in the docket for this NPRM.
\38\ Details of the updated analysis are provided in the
supporting technical document in the docket for this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency estimates that the lives of 284 children 4 YO and
younger were saved in 2009 due to the use of child restraint systems.
At 100 percent use of child restraint systems for children 0 to 4 YO,
an estimated 372 lives would have been saved in 2009.\39\ This estimate
accounts for consumers' real-world use of child restraints, i.e., these
lives would be saved even when the CRSs are misused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Tony Jianquiang Ye and Timothy Pickrell, Child Restraint
use in 2009--Overall Results, NHTSA, DOT HS 811 377, September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure to use proper occupant restraints is a significant factor
in a large number of child occupant fatalities resulting from motor
vehicle crashes. In

[[Page 4577]]

addition, fatalities among children properly restrained in child
restraints are often attributed to the severity of the crash. Sherwood
\40\ examined the FARS database for the year 2000 and determined that
there were 621 child occupant fatalities in the age range of 0 to 5
years. Among these 621 fatalities, 143 (23 percent) children were
reported to be in child restraints. Detailed police reports were
available for 92 of the 143 fatally injured children restrained in
CRSs. Sherwood examined these 92 police reports and determined that
half of the 92 fatalities were in un-survivable crashes, 12 percent of
the fatalities were judged to result from gross misuse of child
restraints, 16 percent in non-catastrophic side impacts, and 13 percent
in non-catastrophic frontal impacts. Sherwood noted that side impacts
accounted for the largest number of fatalities (40 percent), and in all
side impact crashes involving child fatalities, there was vehicle
intrusion at the child's seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Sherwood, C.P., Ferguson, S.A., Crandall, J.R., ``Factors
Leading to Crash Fatalities to Children in Child Restraints,'' 47th
Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine (AAAM), September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In-Depth Study of Fatalities Among Child Occupants

The agency further examined the real world crash databases managed
by the agency (FARS and the National Automotive Sampling System-
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS)) for the years 2005-2009 to
better understand fatalities to children restrained in child restraints
when involved in side crashes.
First, we categorized the crash cases involving children (0 to 12
YO) seated in rear seating positions, by restraint use, crash type, and
child age. See Tables 5 and 6, below.

Table 5--Average Annual Crash Fatalities Among Children 0 to 12 YO in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger
Vehicles Categorized by Restraint Type and Age
[FARS 2005-2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Restraint ---------------------------------------------------- Total
Under 1 1-3 4-7 8-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None........................................... 13.4 39.8 68 91.6 212.8
Adult Belt..................................... 1.8 11.6 57.4 78.2 149
CRS............................................ 55.8 106 54.2 4.4 220.4
Unknown........................................ 2.8 6.6 12.8 14.6 36.8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 73.8 164 192.4 188.6 619
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annually, there were 619 crash fatalities among children 0 to 12 YO
seated in rear seating positions of light vehicles. Among these
fatalities, 220 (36 percent) were to children restrained in CRSs (162
were 0 to 3 YO and 58 were 4 to 12 YO). Nearly three-quarters of the
CRS restrained child fatalities were to children 0 to 3 YO.
As shown in the last column of Table 6, among the 220 fatalities of
children 0 to 12 YO restrained in rear seats of light passenger
vehicles and in CRSs, approximately 32 percent occurred in frontal
crashes, 31 percent in side crashes, 25 percent in rollovers, and 11
percent in rear crashes. Approximately 60 percent of side impact
fatalities (41/68.4) were in near-side impacts. (``Far-side'' position
means the outboard seating position on the opposite side of the point
of impact.)

Table 6--Average Annual Crash Fatalities Among Children 0 to 12 YO in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles and Restrained in CRSs by Crash
Mode and Age
[FARS 2005-2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Crash mode -------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent total
<1 1-3 4-7 8-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover.......................................... 13.8 26.4 13.4 1.4 55 25
Front............................................. 16 35.6 19.8 1 72.4 32
Side.............................................. 17.4 34.8 15 1.2 68.4 31
Near-side..................................... 10.6 20 9.6 0.8 41 18.6
Far-side...................................... 6.8 14.8 5.4 0.4 27.4 12.4
Rear.............................................. 8.6 9.2 6 0.8 24.6 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 55.8 106 54.2 4.4 220.4 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the side impact crash fatalities among CRS restrained children 0
to 12 YO in rear seating positions, three quarters of near side
fatalities (30.6/41) were to children under the age of 4.

In-Depth Study of Injuries to Child Occupants in Motor Vehicle Crashes

In 2010, the agency published an analysis of the NASS--General
Estimates System (GES) data for the years 1999-2008 to better
understand injuries to children in motor vehicle traffic crashes.\41\
The analysis was conducted for three different child age groups (<1 YO,
1 to 3 YO, and 4 to 7 YO) and for different crash modes (rollover,
front, side, and rear). The

[[Page 4578]]

analysis indicated that CRSs are effective in reducing incapacitating
injuries in all three child age groups examined and in all four crash
modes. The analysis found that rollover crashes accounted for the
highest rate of incapacitating injuries, with the incidence rate among
unrestrained children (26 percent) being nearly 3 times that for
children restrained in CRSs (9 percent). In near-side impact crashes,
unrestrained children (incidence rate = 8 percent) were 8 times more
likely to sustain incapacitating injuries than children in CRSs
(incidence rate = 1 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Hanna, R., ``Children Injured in Motor Vehicle Traffic
Crashes,'' DOT HS 811 325, NHTSA, May 2010, https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811325.pdf, last accessed on July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In support of the NPRM, the agency analyzed NASS-CDS for the years
1995-2009 to obtain annual estimates of moderate or higher severity
injuries (AIS 2+ injuries) among children of different ages in
different restraint environment and crash modes. See Table 7 and 8.

Table 7--Average Annual Estimates of 0 to 12 YO Children With AIS 2+ Injuries in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles Involved in Motor
Vehicle Crashes by Restraint Type
[NASS-CDS 1995-2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Restraint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent total
Under 1 1-3 4-7 8-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None................................................... 26 174 765 969 1934 31.7
Adult Belt............................................. 0 93 722 1550 2365 38.7
CRS.................................................... 164 883 422 16 1485 24.3
Unknown if used........................................ 1 32 215 66 314 5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 191 1182 2124 2601 6098 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annually, there were, on average, approximately 6,100 AIS 2+
injuries to children 12 YO and younger seated in the rear seats of
light passenger vehicles with 1,373 of these injured occupants being
younger than 4 YO. Approximately 1,485 CRS restrained children 12 YO
and younger sustained AIS 2+injuries, among which 1,047 (71 percent)
were children younger than 4 YO and 422 (28 percent) were 4 to 7 YO
children.
The NASS-CDS data files for the years 1995-2009 were further
analyzed to determine crash characteristics. Table 8 presents the
average annual estimates of 0 to12 YO children with AIS 2+ injuries in
rear seating positions of light passenger vehicles. Thirty-one percent
of the children were injured in side crashes, 40 percent in frontal
crashes, and 23 percent in rollover crashes.

Table 8--Average Annual Estimates of 0 to 12 YO Children With AIS 2+ Injuries in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles Involved in Motor
Vehicle Crashes by Crash Mode
[NASS-CDS 1995-2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Rollover status, damage type ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent of
<1 1-3 4-7 8-12 known
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover................................................ 38 278 372 704 1,392 23
Front................................................... 103 356 777 1138 2,374 40
Side.................................................... 34 371 893 652 1950 31
Near-Side........................................... 24 280 464 438 1,209 19
Far-Side............................................ 10 91 429 214 741 12
Rear.................................................... 17 139 82 106 344 6
Other................................................... 0 36 0 1 37 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 192 1,180 2,124 2,601 6,097 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To better understand the crash characteristics of children
restrained in child restraints, a similar analysis as that shown in
Table 8 was conducted except that only the cases where the children
were restrained in CRSs were included in the analysis. The results are
presented in Table 9.

Table 9--Average Annual Estimates of 0 to 12 YO CRS Restrained Children With AIS 2+ Injuries in Rear Seating
Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes by Crash Mode
[NASS-CDS 1995-2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Crash mode ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Under 1 1-3 4-7 8-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover........................ 28 148 44 0 220
Front........................... 94 310 214 16 634
Side............................ 31 307 137 0 475
Near-side................... 22 253 44 0 319
Far-side.................... 9 54 93 0 156

[[Page 4579]]

Rear............................ 12 98 26 0 136
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 165 863 421 16 1465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For AIS 2+ injured 12 YO and younger child occupants in passenger
vehicles restrained in CRSs in rear seating positions, 15 percent of
the injuries were in rollover events, 43 percent in frontal crashes, 33
percent in side crashes, and 9 percent in rear crashes. Sixty-seven
percent (319/475) of the occupants in side crashes were in near-side
impacts.
In the above analyses some of these injuries and fatalities
involved children in seats that were incorrectly used. However, we do
not have complete data on the number accidents that involved misuse
because accident databases do not generally collect data on how child
restraints were used.

VIII. Past NHTSA Efforts

In the past, NHTSA has explored the possibility of side impact
requirements for child restraints in FMVSS No. 213.
When NHTSA first considered dynamic testing of child restraints (39
FR 7959; March 1, 1974), the agency proposed a 90 degree lateral impact
simulating a 32 km/h (20 mph) crash. NHTSA proposed that each CRS would
have to retain the test dummy within the system, limit head motion to
483 mm (19 inches (in)) in each lateral direction measured from the
exterior surface of the dummy's head, and suffer no loss of structural
integrity.
NHTSA withdrew the proposal after testing a number of restraints at
a speed of 32 km/h (20 mph) and at a horizontal angle of 60 degrees
from the direction of the test platform travel. The tests found that
for outboard seating positions, only one of those restraints--one that
required a tether--could meet the lateral head excursion limits that
had been proposed. This was of concern because tethers were widely
unused at that time. Further, the agency found that some restraints
with impact shields, which, the agency stated, performed well in
frontal crashes and which were rarely misused, could not pass the
lateral test even when placed in the center seating position. The
agency decided not to pursue lateral testing of child restraints given
the cost of the design changes that would have been necessary to meet
the lateral test, the problems with misuse of tethers, and the possible
price sensitivity of child restraint sales. (43 FR 21470, 21474; May
18, 1978.)
In 2002, in response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation Act (``TREAD Act'') (Pub. L. 106-414,
114 Stat. 1800), NHTSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to request comments on the agency's work in developing a
possible side impact protection requirement for CRSs (67 FR 21836, May
1, 2002).
Information indicated that child head injury was prevalent in side
crashes. However, the agency was not able to confirm whether the
majority of injuries and fatalities occur primarily due to direct head
contact with the vehicle interior or other objects in the vehicle, or
whether these injuries and fatalities are a result of non-contact,
inertial loading on the head and neck structure. Due to these unknowns
about head injury causation, the agency considered two side impact
performance tests for child restraints. The tests were modeled after
the simulated side impact test administered by the New South Wales,
Australia, Roads and Traffic Authority (discussed in the next section).
In one test, the CRS had to limit head excursion and HIC \42\ when
oriented at 90 degrees to the direction of sled travel. In the second
test developed by NHTSA, a rigid structure, representing the side of
the vehicle's interior side structure, was positioned adjacent to the
child restraint. Limits on HIC, chest acceleration, a neck injury
criterion and chest deflection were considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Head injury criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ANPRM requested information on the following areas: (a)
Determination of child injury mechanisms in side impacts, and crash
characteristics associated with serious and fatal injuries to children
in child restraints; (b) development of test procedures, a suitable
test dummy and appropriate injury criteria; and (c) identification of
cost beneficial countermeasures.
The agency received approximately 17 comments on the ANPRM.
Commenters supported enhancing child passenger protection in side
impacts, but were concerned about the uncertainties with respect to the
three areas highlighted above. A number of commenters believed that a
dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle intrusion into
the occupant compartment.
NHTSA withdrew the ANPRM after considering the comments on the
ANPRM and other information. The agency found that for side crashes:
(a) Data were not widely available as to how children are being injured
and killed in side impacts (e.g., to what degree injuries were caused
by intrusion of an impacting vehicle or other object); (b) there was
not a consensus on an appropriate child test dummy and associated
injury criteria for side impact testing; and, (c) potential
countermeasures for side impact intrusion were not identified. NHTSA
determined that an NPRM was not feasible given unknowns about side
crashes involving children in CRSs and the time constraints of the
TREAD Act.

IX. Side Impact Program Developments

Notwithstanding the ANPRM's withdrawal, NHTSA continued research
into improved side impact protection requirements for child restraints.
As discussed in this section, the state of knowledge about side
crashes and CRS-restrained children is considerably greater now than it
was in 2002. Information about how restrained children are being
injured and killed in side crashes has become increasingly available in
recent years. In addition, the agency has continued to evaluate test
parameters and potential methodologies to replicate a representative
side impact scenario that could potentially be developed into a dynamic
side impact test procedure.

[[Page 4580]]

a. Side Impact Environment for Children

Sherwood \43\ analyzed fatalities of children under 5 years of age
and found that even in survivable crashes there was intrusion into the
interior space occupied by the child. Arbogast \44\ found intrusion to
be an important causative factor for moderate/serious injury and
suggested that side impact test procedures include intrusion into the
occupant space. Howard \45\ found that struck side child passengers
sustained severe head, torso and extremity injuries, many of them
attributable to direct intrusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ Sherwood, et al., 2003, supra.
\44\ Arbogast, K.B., Chen, I., Durbin, D.R., and Winston, F.K.,
``Injury Risks for Children in Child Restraint Systems in Side
Impact Crashes,'' International IRCOBI Conference on the
Biomechanics of Impact, October 2004.
\45\ Howard, A., Rothman, L., Moses McKeag, A., Pazmino-
Canizares, J., Monk, B., Comeau, J.L., Mills, D., Blazeski, S.,
Hale, I., and German, A., ``Children in Side-Impact Motor Vehicle
Crashes: Seating Positions and Injury Mechanisms,'' The Journal of
Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp.
1276-1285, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherwood also found that most side crashes had a longitudinal crash
component and recommended that child restraints be designed to take
into account both longitudinal and lateral components of the direction
of force in a side crash. This finding accords with that found by NHTSA
while developing FMVSS No. 214 (55 FR 45733), where data showed that
during most side impact crashes, the struck vehicle is traveling
forward while being struck on the side.
Nagabhushana \46\ noted that vehicle crashes involving child
occupants most often had a principal direction of force of 2 o'clock
(60 degrees) or 10 o'clock (300 degrees). Nagabhushana also found that
the average change in velocity in side crashes involving children 1 to
3 YO (in crashes where the child was positioned near-side, on the
struck side of the vehicle) was 23 km/h (14 mph). NHTSA examined NASS-
CDS data files for the years 1995-2009 for side impact crashes of light
vehicles and found that 92 percent of near-side crashes to restrained
children (0 to 12 YO) had a change in velocity of 30 km/h (19 mph) or
lower. This change in velocity is approximately equal to that
experienced by a light vehicle in a FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact test.
This 92 percent is of all near side crashes involving restrained
children 0-12 years old. These near-side crashes were not only fatal
crashes, but also included those where occupants were not injured or
sustained non-fatal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Nagabhushana, V., Morgan, R., Kan, C., Park, J., Kuznetsov,
A., ``Impact Risk for 1-3 Year-Old Children on the Struck Side in a
Lateral crash,'' DOT HS 810 699, April 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Injury Mechanisms in Side Impact

McCray (2007) \47\ analyzed the NASS-CDS and Crash Injury Research
and Engineering Network (CIREN) data files for the years 1995-2005 to
better understand injuries to children 1 to 3 YO in side impact
crashes. The study found that children restrained in CRSs exhibited
more head injuries (59 percent) than torso injuries (22 percent) and
injuries to extremities (14 percent). Children in near-side crashes
tended to suffer more severe injuries than those in far-side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ McCray, et al., 2007, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arbogast (2004) \48\ queried the Partners for Child Passenger
Safety Study (PCPS) data collected from December 1, 1998 to November
30, 2002 and found that the risk of injury (AIS 2+: moderate or greater
severity) for children restrained in CRSs in near-side impact crashes
was significantly higher (8.9 injured children per 1,000 crashes) than
those in far-side \49\ impact crashes (2.1 injured children per 1,000
crashes) and those in frontal crashes (2.7 injured children per 1,000
crashes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Arbogast, et al., 2004, supra.
\49\ Far-side impacts are side impact crashes where the occupant
is seated away from the struck-side of the vehicle (center seating
position or opposite the struck-side of the vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA analyzed NASS-CDS average annual estimates (1995-2009) for
AIS 2+ injuries to children 0 to 12 YO in rear seats. The most common
AIS 2+ injuries among restrained children in near-side impacts were to
the head and face (55 percent), torso (chest and abdomen--29 percent),
upper and lower extremities (13 percent). The most common injury
contacts for AIS 2+ injuries were the side interior (33 percent), the
front seat back (11.12 percent) and the CRS (9 percent).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ In comparison, data showed that the most common AIS 2+
injuries among children restrained in frontal impacts were to the
head and face (42 percent), torso (chest and abdomen--27 percent),
and upper and lower extremities (25 percent). The most common injury
contacts for AIS 2+ injuries were the seat back support (50 percent)
and the belt webbing or buckle (19 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arbogast (2010) \51\ examined two in-depth crash investigation
databases (CIREN and the PCPS) for rear-seated CRS-restrained children
in side impact crashes who sustained AIS 2+ injuries. Arbogast found
that among the 41 cases examined, 28 children sustained head injuries
and 9 sustained thoracic injuries (lung contusions without rib
fractures). In general, head and thorax injuries were due to contact
with the CRS structure or the door interior. For near- and center-
seated occupants, the head and face were the most common body regions
of injury, followed by the thorax. For far-side occupants, there were
fewer injuries and there was no clear pattern of body region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Arbogast, K.B., Locey, C.M., Zonfrillo, M.R., Maltese,
M.R., ``Protection of Children Restrained in Child Safety Seats in
Side Impact Crashes,'' Journal of Trauma, 2010, October, 69(4): 913-
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Global Dynamic Side Impact Tests

Globally, several organizations have developed or continued work on
side impact test procedures for child restraints.
Australia and New Zealand's dynamic side impact test
procedure (AS/NZS 1754 Revision 2004) specifies two different side
impact tests. The first test simulates a far-side crash, in which a
bench seat with a CRS attached to it is mounted on a sled at a 90
degree orientation and is subjected to lateral acceleration
representative of that in a side impact vehicle crash. The second test
simulates a near-side crash, incorporating a bench seat mounted at 90
degrees on the sled along with a fixed door mounted at the front of the
sled adjacent to the bench seat. The sled is calibrated to undergo a
velocity change of not less than 32 km/h (20 mph), with a deceleration
of 14-20 g. P-series dummies developed by the Netherlands Organization
for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) are used to test forward-facing
seats and boosters, and the TNO P-series and the TARU Theresa dummy are
used for infant rear-facing restraints. The AS/NZS 1754 regulation
specifies that the child restraints shall not allow any head contact
with any part of the test door. (The P-series ATDs are frontal impact
test dummies. They were not specially designed for use in side impacts.
The TARU Theresa dummy represents a 6-week-old infant and is an
uninstrumented dummy with a weight of only 4 kg (9 lb).)
Australia's consumer information program rates the
performance of CRSs in side impacts through the ``Child Restraint
Evaluation Program'' (CREP). The test procedure is similar to AS/NZS
1754. CREP utilizes two side impact tests for its CRS rating system;
one test is at a 90 degree impact and the other is at a 66 degree \52\
impact, both with a fixed door structure in place. The velocity of the
sled is 32 km/h (20 mph) and its peak deceleration is 17 g. CREP rates
the child restraint system in the side impact test based on child
restraint durability and structural integrity, dummy retention in the
CRS, and head excursion and contact with the wall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ Previously this was a 45 degree impact.

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

[[Page 4581]]

Germany's Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC)
adopted a consumer information rating program. The procedure uses a
body-in-white of a VW Golf or Opel Astra. The body-in-white \53\
structure is mounted on a sled at an 80 degree angle. The vehicle door
does not intrude into the passenger area; the door is welded shut and
covered with foam creating a flat door. The sled is decelerated from an
initial velocity of 25 km/h (16 mph) with an 18 g acceleration pulse.
This test method is used to determine ADAC star ratings based on head
containment, head acceleration, chest acceleration, neck moment and
neck force of the Q series dummies and the P10 (P-series, 10 YO child
dummy) for booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ Body-in-white refers to a stage of automobile manufacturing
in which the car body sheet metal has been welded and assembled but
before the motor and chassis assemblies have been added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The International Standards Organization (ISO) and TNO
have continued to work on developing a side impact test which uses a
rotating hinged door to simulate door intrusion into the CRS.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Johannsen, H., et al., ``Review of the Development of the
ISO Side Impact Test Procedure for Child Restraint Systems,'' 20th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Paper No. 07-0241, Lyon, France, 2007. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0241-W30.pdf. Last accessed May
3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29) of the European Union (EU) approved Phase I (total
of 3 phases) of a new regulation on child restraint systems in November
2012, which includes a side impact test procedure.\55\ The test
procedure is currently only intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid
ISOFIX anchorages.\56\ The regulation's test procedure consists of a
fixed flat door on a sled that intrudes into a CRS secured on a bench
seat using the ISOFIX anchorages. The relative velocity between the
door and the bench seat at time of impact is approximately 25 km/h (16
mph). The impact is purely lateral with no longitudinal door velocity
component. The ISOFIX anchorages on the test bench are allowed to slide
along the seat up to 250 mm to avoid damage of the attachments and the
test equipment. The CRSs are tested using the Q-series newborn, 1 YO,
1\1/2\ YO, and 3 YO child dummies in accordance with manufacturers'
recommended size of child for the CRS. Injury criteria include head
containment (no contact of the head with the door panel), head
acceleration, and a head injury criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2012/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP29-2012-53e.pdf.
\56\ The ISOFIX concept originated as a 4-point rigid system,
where four sturdy braces are mounted on the bottom of a child
restraint. Each brace has a latch at its end. Two of the latches
connect, through holes at the vehicle seat bight, to a metal bar in
the seat frame. The other two latches, at the bottom braces, connect
to a bar below the vehicle seat cushion. Alternatives to the concept
4-point ISO system have been developed, including a system that
consists of the CRS having two rigid rear braces at the seat bight
(rather than the 4 points of the original ISOFIX). Some ISOFIX
concepts have included an upper tether, some have included a support
leg (see next footnote, below). FMVSS No. 225's ``LATCH'' system
grew out of the ISOFIX concept, as the lower bars of the LATCH
system are similar to the seat frame bar at the seat bight in
ISOFIX. LATCH requires the CRS to have components that attach to the
vehicle's lower bars, but LATCH does not require the components to
be rigidly attached to the CRS as on a brace. The components may be
attached to the CRS by webbing material. Because of these
differences, a test designed for ISOFIX systems is generally not
appropriate for testing LATCH systems, and vice versa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

European authorities are developing a new consumer
program, ``New Programme for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems
(NPACS),'' \57\ to create a harmonized program for the evaluation of
ISOFIX universal and ISOFIX semi-universal \58\ child restraints. This
rating program would include a side impact test for CRSs and will
utilize ATDs. Details of the test procedure are not available at this
time, but it is the agency's understanding that, although the eventual
test procedure may share some aspects with the recent ECE regulation,
it will likely not be based on the same test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ NPACS is similar to NHTSA's (and the general European) New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP), in that it is a voluntary consumer
information program, rather than a binding regulation. The
difference is that NPACS is being designed to test the CRS itself,
while NCAP focuses on how the vehicle performs.
\58\ ISOFIX universal CRS means forward-facing restraints for
use in vehicles with positions equipped with ISOFIX anchorages and a
top tether anchorage. ISOFIX semi-universal CRS means: (a) A
forward-facing restraint equipped with a support leg; (b) a rearward
facing restraint equipped with a support leg or a top tether strap
for use in vehicles with positions equipped with an ISOFIX anchorage
system and a top tether anchorage if needed; (c) a rearward facing
restraint, supported by the vehicle dashboard, for use in the front
passenger seat equipped with an ISOFIX anchorage system; or (d) a
lateral facing position restraint equipped, if needed, with an anti-
rotation device for use in vehicles with positions equipped with an
ISOFIX anchorage system and a top tether anchorage, if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Takata developed a sled test buck for testing child
restraints in a side impact environment. The buck has two moving
fixtures: The sled buck itself and the sliding ``vehicle'' seat on
which the child restraint is attached. The sliding ``vehicle'' seat is
mounted to a rail system, along with a ``side door'' structure rigidly
mounted to the sled buck structure. The details of this test procedure
are described more fully in section IX.

d. Side Impact Test Dummy

The development of a specially-designed child side impact test
dummy, the Q3s, has provided an important tool for evaluating CRSs in
side impact. The Q3s is built on the platform of the standard Q3 dummy
series (the Q-series are frontal ATDs used in Europe), but the Q3s has
enhanced lateral biofidelity, durability and additional instrumentation
for specialized use in side impact testing. The Q3s is more fully
discussed in the 49 CFR Part 572 NPRM.

X. Developing NHTSA's Side Impact Test

The state of knowledge and the practicability of measures that can
be taken to improve side impact protection are now sufficient for NHTSA
to propose a reasonable and realistic side impact test for
incorporation into FMVSS No. 213.
Based on the information that has become available since the 2002
ANPRM, we tentatively conclude that a side impact is best replicated if
the test procedure reflects and replicates dynamic elements of both the
striking and struck vehicle in a vehicle-to-vehicle crash. We believe
that a side impact test procedure should account for: (1) The struck
vehicle door velocity prior to the interaction of the striking vehicle
with the door sill of the struck vehicle, (2) the acceleration profile
of the struck vehicle, and (3) the impact angle to replicate the
longitudinal component of the direction of force. Specification of
these parameters, based on actual vehicle crash characteristics, would
enable the realistic simulation of the relative velocity between the
intruding door and the CRS.
Selection of these parameters is consistent with the findings from
other researchers (see Side Impact Environment for Children, section
IX, supra) that found the change in velocity, the level of door
intrusion, and the impact angle to be significant factors of near-side
impact crashes involving children. In addition, the test bench and door
geometry and vehicle seat and door padding characteristics are
important in a side impact test, to ensure these are representative of
the vehicle rear seat environment.

a. Assessment of Existing Global Efforts

In order to build on existing efforts, NHTSA reviewed the above
procedures and regulations developed globally that dynamically test
child restraints in the side impact environment. Except for the Takata
test procedure, the procedures and regulations did not replicate all of

[[Page 4582]]

the dynamic elements of a side crash that we sought to include in the
side impact test or were not sufficiently developed for further
consideration.
NHTSA considered AS/NZS 1754 for implementation into FMVSS No. 213
but has not proposed it, mainly because the procedure does not simulate
the intruding door, which we believe is an important component in the
side impact environment. In addition, AS/NZS 1754 does not account for
a longitudinal component, which we also believe to be an important
characteristic of a side crash. (As noted above, NHTSA's 2002 ANPRM,
supra, was based on AS/NZS 1754. Commenters to the ANPRM believed that
a dynamic test should account for some degree of vehicle intrusion into
the occupant compartment.) Australia's CREP test also was limited by
its lack of an intruding door, which is a component that is important
in the side impact environment.
Germany's ADAC test procedure lacks an intruding door. Further, the
vehicles represented by the body-in-white in Germany's ADAC test
procedure are limited, and do not represent the range of vehicles in
the U.S. fleet that we would like to have represented in our side
impact test to safeguard child passengers in the U.S.
While the ISO/TNO test procedure accounts for the deceleration and
intrusion experienced by a car in a side impact crash, one of its
limitations is that the angular velocity of the hinged door is
difficult to control, which reportedly results in poor
repeatability.\59\ In addition, this test procedure does not include a
longitudinal velocity component to the intruding door, which is present
in most side impacts and which, we believe, should be replicated in the
FMVSS No. 213 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ Sandner, V., et al., ``New Programm for the Assessment of
Child Restraint Systems (NPACS)--Development/Research/Results--First
Step for Future Activities?,'' 21st International Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper Number 09-0298, 2009. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0298.pdf. Last accessed on June
11, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EU's test procedure did not appear appropriate since the test
is of lower severity than the FMVSS No. 214 MDB side impact crash test
of a small passenger vehicle. Moreover, the test procedure is only
intended for evaluating CRSs with rigid ISOFIX attachments, which are
not available on CRSs in the U.S., and, due to the differences in to
the two systems discussed above, a test designed for one type of system
will not produce useful results for testing the other system. Further,
the test procedure does not seem to produce a representative
interaction between the door and CRS during a side impact. The NHTSA-
developed test procedure replicates a real-world T-bone type
intersection collision, involving two moving vehicles, with door
intrusion. In contrast, the European test with the sliding ISO
anchorages is a purely lateral impact (stationary vehicle impacted
laterally by another vehicle) and it does not correctly represent the
door intrusion and door to child restraint interaction in real world
side crashes, In addition, the sliding anchors in the European test
allow for the child restraint to slide away from the impacting door,
which also causes the European test be less reflective of a real-world
crash than the test proposed in today's NPRM. The European test is
likewise sensitive to the friction of the sliding anchorages, which may
introduce variability in the test results.\60\ Finally, the European
procedure uses the Q series dummies, which are frontal crash dummies.
NHTSA evaluated the Q3 dummy and has tentatively concluded that the Q3
dummy does not have adequate biofidelity in lateral impact, in contrast
to the Q3s dummy we propose, which is designed for side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Hynd, et al., ``Analysis for the development of legislation
on child occupant protection,'' TRL, July 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPACS consumer program for side impact is still undergoing
development and the details of the sled test procedure and dummies are
not available.

b. Takata Test Procedure

In 2007, the agency began evaluating the Takata sled test procedure
for evaluating child restraints in side impact.\61\ The test procedure
demonstrated versatility for tuning parameters to obtain the desired
test environment. NHTSA could tune the parameters to simulate the two-
vehicle side crash replicated in the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214
(striking vehicle traveling at 48 km/h (30 mph) impacting the struck
vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15 mph), which accounts for approximately
92 percent of near-side crashes involving restrained children (0 to 12
YO children in all restraint environments--seat belts and CRSs). The
procedure includes an intruding door and can simulate the relative
velocity between the CRS and the intruding door. It can also be easily
modified to change the impact angle to introduce a longitudinal
component present in the FMVSS No. 214 tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Takata made a presentation on its side impact test
procedure during a February 8, 2007 NHTSA public meeting. The
meeting concerned: Improving LATCH, CRS side impact safety, and
LATCH education. See meeting notice, 72 FR 3103, January 24, 2007,
Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26833. NHTSA also published two papers on the
agency's research and testing on the Takata test procedure. See
Sullivan 2009 and Sullivan 2011, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its preliminary evaluation of the Takata test protocol, after
making minor modification to the test parameters,\62\ NHTSA determined
that the test procedure was repeatable and was able to provide results
that distinguished between the performance of various CRS models based
on the design of the side wings and stiffness of the CRS padding.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Sullivan, 2009, supra.
\63\ Sullivan et al., ``NHTSA's Evaluation of a Potential Child
Side Impact Test Procedures,'' 22nd International Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 2011-0227 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Takata procedure is based on an acceleration sled with a test
buck consisting of a sliding ``vehicle'' seat mounted to a rail system,
along with a ``side door'' structure rigidly mounted to the sled buck
structure. The vehicle seat and side door are representative of today's
passenger vehicles. Aluminum honeycomb is mounted below the side door
structure. The sliding vehicle seat is positioned sufficiently away
from the side door to allow the sled to reach a desired velocity prior
to the sliding vehicle seat coming into contact with the side door and
aluminum honeycomb. The purpose of the design is for the side door
structure to impact the sliding ``vehicle'' seat at a specified speed,
at which time the aluminum honeycomb begins to crush. The door contacts
the CRS about the same time as the honeycomb contacts the sliding
``vehicle'' seat. The honeycomb characteristics are selected such that
the desired sliding seat acceleration is achieved. The procedure is
illustrated in Figure 1 below.

[[Page 4583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.000

After considering the Takata test procedure, NHTSA selected the
test method as a basis for developing a side impact test for evaluating
CRS performance.

XI. The Proposed Test Procedure

As shown above, the proposed test buck consists of a sliding
``vehicle'' seat and ``side door'' rigidly mounted to the

[[Page 4584]]

acceleration sled buck structure. Aluminum honeycomb is mounted below
the side door structure. The side door is made to reach a desired
velocity prior to the aluminum honeycomb coming into contact with the
sliding ``vehicle'' seat structure. The parameters of the test buck and
the honeycomb could be tuned to simulate the MDB test of FMVSS No. 214.
The agency examined data from FMVSS No. 214 MDB compliance tests to
identify kinematic characteristics of the vehicle test that should be
replicated in the sled test environment so that the latter is
representative of the crash experience of a child restrained in a CRS
in the rear seat. The following sled kinematic parameters were
identified: (1) The acceleration profile of the sliding seat
(representing the struck vehicle acceleration); (2) the door velocity
at time of contact with the sliding seat (this represents the struck
vehicle door velocity; and (3) the impact angle of the door with the
sliding seat (to replicate the longitudinal component of the direction
of force).
NHTSA selected and analyzed several FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of
small passenger vehicles to determine the test parameters and test
corridors representative of the target crash environment. The agency
determined that a small passenger vehicle in an FMVSS No. 214 MDB crash
test experiences a lateral change in velocity of about 30 km/h (18.6
mph). This change in velocity is greater than 92 percent of near-side
impact real-world crashes involving restrained children 0 to 12 YO in
light vehicles, as estimated by NHTSA using the NASS-CDS datafiles. In
order to ensure that the side impact test would be sufficiently
stringent to account for the greater acceleration and intrusion
experienced by smaller vehicles, the agency focused on the crash
characteristics of small passenger vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 side MDB
tests, as opposed to the average estimates from all vehicles.

a. Sled Kinematic Parameters

1. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile (Representing the Struck Vehicle)
To obtain a target acceleration pulse for the sliding seat that
represents the motion of the struck vehicle, the right rear sill (the
opposite side of impact) lateral (Y-axis) acceleration of ten small
vehicles in FMVSS No. 214 tests were analyzed.\64\ The right rear sill
accelerations were averaged to derive a typical struck vehicle
acceleration corridor for small sized vehicles. Figure 2 shows the
upper and lower boundaries of the rear sill accelerations in thick
solid black lines while the dotted line represents the average of the
accelerations. The solid thin black line in Figure 2 is a
representative sliding seat acceleration pulse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ Sullivan et al., 2009.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.001

To obtain the sliding seat velocity (representing the motion of the
struck vehicle), the right rear sill lateral (Y-axis) accelerations of
the ten small vehicles were integrated to calculate the velocity. The
results showed a change in velocity of approximately 26 to 29 km/h (16
to 18 mph).
2. Door Velocity
The door velocity (which represents the struck vehicle door
velocity), was obtained from the integration of door acceleration data
from four of the ten previously selected FMVSS No. 214 compliance tests
(only these four vehicles were tested with accelerometers installed on
the door).\65\ The resulting lateral (Y-axis) peak velocities of the
door during interaction with the test dummy ranged from 30 km/h (18.6
mph) at the upper centerline to 32.0 km/h (20 mph) at the mid-
centerline. Thus, the target lateral door velocity selected for the
test buck was 31 km/h (19.3 mph). Since the kinematics of the door
prior to the interaction with the sliding seat do not affect the energy
and impulse imparted to the sliding seat and child restraint system,
the acceleration profile of the impacting door need not be specified as
long as its velocity during the interaction with the sliding seat and
child restraint system is maintained within specified velocity
tolerances. The door velocity should be 31 km/h (19.3 mph) prior to the
honeycomb contacting the sliding seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ Id.

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

[[Page 4585]]

The relative velocity profile of the intruding door with respect to
the sliding seat from the time the door first contacts the sliding seat
structure to the time the sliding seat and the door reach a common
velocity was determined from sled simulations with a door impact
velocity of the 31 km/h (19.3 mph) in the direction of the sliding seat
motion and a sliding seat acceleration profile shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the average (dotted line) and the upper and lower
boundaries (solid lines) of the velocity profile for the door relative
to the sliding seat in sled tests performed during the development of
the test procedure. The upper and lower boundaries of the relative door
velocity represent the maximum and minimum values of the cluster of
relative door velocity profiles in these sled tests.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.002

Today's NPRM only proposes an acceleration profile for the sliding
seat and a door impact velocity but does not propose a relative door
velocity profile so as not to over specify the test environment.
However, a door velocity profile with respect to the sliding seat may
be desirable to ensure reproducible interaction of the intruding door
with the child restraint in different types of sled systems. We are
requesting comments on the need for specifying a relative door velocity
profile to improve reproducibility of the test procedure. Depending on
whether we receive information sufficiently supporting such a velocity
profile, we may include one in the final rule.
3. Sled Buck Angle (Replicating Longitudinal Component of the Direction
of Force)
The ten small vehicle FMVSS No. 214 tests were used to determine
the impact angle of the sled buck. The right rear sill acceleration
signals on both the longitudinal (X-axis) and lateral (Y-axis)
directions were integrated to obtain the X and Y vehicle velocities.
These velocities were used to calculate the angle of the resultant
deceleration with respect to the lateral axis of the vehicle during the
crash event.\66\ The time period of interest was determined to be 5 to
60 ms, because this represents the typical time from initial motion of
the struck vehicle through peak loading on the near-side occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ Sullivan et al., 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A reference frame was used in which a pure left-to-right lateral
impact was zero degrees and a pure frontal impact was 90 degrees. The
mean angles over the time period of interest for the ten vehicles
ranged from 4 to 15 degrees, while the angle at any specific time
ranged from -8 to 22 degrees across the ten vehicles. From these
ranges, the agency decided to perform tests within a range of 0 to 20
degrees. These tests (at 0, 10, 15 and 20 degrees) were performed in an
effort to evaluate the effect of the test buck's impact angle on dummy
kinematics and injury responses. Based on the tests and on the average
impact angle computed from the vehicle right rear sill velocities of
MDB-to-vehicle crash tests, we selected a 10 degree impact angle as the
most appropriate. NHTSA also conducted sled tests at different impact
angles (0, 5, 10, and 20 degrees) using the Takata sled procedure to
compare them to four MDB crash tests (discussed in a later section)
performed using the Q3s dummy restrained in a CRS in the rear seat
behind the driver. We found that a 10 degree impact angle on the sled
test produced dummy responses closer to those measured by the ATD in
the same CRS in the four MDB crash tests than the other impact
angles.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ Sullivan et al. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Rear Seat Environment Parameters

The proposed SISA consists of a sliding ``vehicle'' seat mounted to
a rail system, along with a side door structure rigidly mounted to the
sled buck

[[Page 4586]]

structure. To ensure that the sliding ``vehicle'' seat and side door
would be representative of today's passenger vehicles, NHTSA conducted
a vehicle survey to examine the geometry and contact characteristics of
present day vehicle rear seats, to select the geometry and material
characteristics that are necessary to replicate the physical
environment of a typical rear seat in a side impact test. NHTSA
identified the following rear seat features to replicate in the SISA:
Rear seat geometry, rear seat cushion stiffness, and door shape (height
of window, armrest thickness, door padding). More information about the
vehicle survey can be found in a technical report that has been placed
in the docket.
NHTSA also performed a series of sled tests to undertake a
sensitivity analysis to better understand the effect of the sled test
parameters and sled system configuration on dummy responses. The
parameters evaluated were the seat cushion stiffness, door padding
stiffness, presence of armrest, and window sill height. Details of the
findings of the sensitivity analysis are discussed in Sullivan (2011),
supra, and are summarized in the discussion below and in the docketed
technical report.
1. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness
In the vehicle survey, NHTSA measured the rear seat cushion
stiffness of 13 vehicles, as well as the seat cushion stiffness of the
seat cushions used in FMVSS No. 213, ECE R.44, and the NPACS
programs.\68\ The 13 vehicles selected were a mix of different vehicle
manufacturers and different vehicle types (passenger cars, sport
utility vehicles, etc.). The NPACS cushion foam was evaluated even
though the NPACS rating system is only in draft form, because European
efforts to upgrade ECE R.44 are considering the use of NPACS foam for
the seat cushion.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Id.
\69\ LeClaire, M., and Cheung, G., ``NPACS (New Programme for
Assessment of Child restraint Systems, Phase 1 Final Report'' PPAD
9/33/128, Prepared for the Department of Transport, U.K., March
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measurements were taken at various locations on the rear seat
cushion of vehicles in quasi-static compression tests using an
indentation plate.\70\ The FMVSS No. 213 foam was found to be softer
than all the vehicle seat foams surveyed. The NPACS and ECE R.44 foams
were stiffer than the FMVSS No. 213 foam, and more representative of
the vehicles selected in this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis (see docketed technical report), we
conducted sled tests with the Q3s to determine the effect of the seat
cushion stiffness on dummy readings and CRS performance. Three CRS
models were evaluated (Evenflo Triumph Advance DLX, Maxi-Cosi Priori XP
and Graco SafeSeat Step2/Cozy Cline). The FMVSS No. 213 foam (with
vinyl cover) and the ECE R.44 foam (with cloth cover) were used in this
series of tests.\71\ The results of the evaluation indicated that seat
cushion foam stiffness had little effect on the dummy responses in
these side impact tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ Sullivan et al. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the above, the agency is proposing that the seat cushion
foam for the SISA have the stiffness of the ECE R.44 seat foam, given
that the ECE R.44 foam is more representative of the current rear seats
in the vehicle fleet than the FMVSS No. 213 cushion foam. The agency
prefers the ECE R.44 foam over that of the NPACS foam because, although
the two foams are similar in stiffness, the ECE R.44 foam is more
readily available than the NPACS foam. Further, the NPACS procedure is
still in draft form.
The agency has initiated a research program to evaluate how the
test parameters of the FMVSS No. 213 frontal sled test should be
updated to reflect any significant real world developments. Within this
program, the agency's plans include developing a test bench seat with
seat cushion stiffness that has characteristics of seat cushions in
recent vehicle models.\72\ The agency will consider, to the extent
possible under the timeframes for the research and rulemaking programs,
the merits of using this updated seat cushion foam in the side impact
sled. In the meantime, the agency is currently proposing to use the ECE
R.44 foam for the sliding bench seat in the side impact sled. While our
current test data indicate that seat cushion foam stiffness has little
effect on the dummy responses in this side impact test procedure, we
request comment on the proposed seat cushion foam and seat cushion
assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ See also MAP-21, Sec. 31501(b), ``Frontal Impact Test
Parameters.'' Paragraph (1) states that, not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of MAP-21 (July 6, 2012), the Secretary
shall commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend the standard seat
assembly specifications under FMVSS No. 213 ``to better simulate a
single representative motor vehicle rear seat.'' Paragraph (2)
states that not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of
MAP-21, the Secretary shall issue a final rule pursuant to paragraph
(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Rear Seat Door Stiffness
To determine the sled door padding characteristics, we impact-
tested eight vehicle doors using a Free Motion Head (FMH) (see the
docketed technical report and Sullivan (2011)). The FMH impact tests
consisted of a 3.5 kg (7.7 lb) child head form launched horizontally
towards the door at 24 and 32 km/h (15 and 20 mph, respectively), which
are the FMH impact test velocities used to test vehicle interiors in
FMVSS No. 201, ``Occupant protection in interior impact'' (49 CFR
571.201).
The FMH was directed at different locations on the door where the
head of the dummy was most likely to make contact. That is, the impact
points were selected based on the center of gravity and top of the head
locations of the Hybrid III (HIII) 3 YO child ATD, the HIII 6 YO child
ATD, and the HIII 10 YO child ATD seated on the vehicle seat. The
impact points were determined by tracking the location of head-to-door
contact of these different sized ATDs when seated in the rear seat of a
vehicle and leaned forward and laterally towards the door. Based on the
results from the FMH tests of the eight vehicles, three foams
(described as ``stiff,'' ``average'' and ``soft'' foams) spanning the
range of vehicle door padding FMH impact characteristics were selected.
In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis (see technical report), we
conducted a series of sled tests with the Q3s to assess the effect of
door padding stiffness on the performance of the two CRS models (Graco
Safe Seat Step 2 and Maxi Cosi Priori XP). ``Soft'' (United Foam
2), ``average'' (Dow Ethafoam 220), and ``stiff'' (United
Foam 4) foam were used in 51 mm (2 in) thick padding applied
to the simulated door wall panel.\73\ Results showed that the door
stiffness had little effect on dummy performance. The door stiffness
had little effect on the Q3s dummy's HIC15 and chest
deflection results, when restrained in the Graco SafeSeat Step 2 and
Maxi-Cosi Priori XP seats, for the soft, average, and stiff door panel
foams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Sullivan et al. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the above information, the agency is proposing that the door
of the SISA comprise of 51 mm (2 in) thick foam of ``average''
stiffness, so as to be representative of the average rear seat
characteristics. In addition, the foam material with average stiffness
(Dow Ethafoam 220) is of lower cost compared to the other foams, is
relatively easy to obtain commercially, and is relatively fungible, in
that other materials with similar physical properties could easily be
used in its place.
3. Rear Seat Environment Geometry
The agency surveyed 2010 model year passenger vehicles (passenger
cars, SUVs, vans) to obtain dimensional

[[Page 4587]]

characteristics of rear seat attributes that could affect the
performance of a CRS in the rear seat compartment.\74\ These attributes
were: Seat back angle, seat pan angle, beltline height (from
approximately the vehicle seat bight (i.e., the intersection of the
seat cushion and the seat back)), height of the top of the armrest
(from the seat bight), and armrest thickness (protrusion of the armrest
from the door).\75\ The agency measured the seat and door geometry,
position, and dimensions using a Seat Geometry Measuring Fixture
(SGMF).\76\ The SGMF was positioned on the centerline of a rear seating
position and measurements were made with respect to point A (center of
the hinge) of the SGMF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ See Aram et al., ``Vehicle Rear Seat Study--Technical
Report, NHTSA, 2013,'' which is in the docket for this NPRM.
\75\ The original Takata sled buck did not include an armrest.
We modified the sled buck to include an armrest.
\76\ The SGMF was fabricated using two 2 x 4 wood blocks (600 mm
x 88 mm x 38 mm) and a three inch hinge. Photographs of the SGMF are
in the report by Aram et al. (2013), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seat Back and Seat Pan Angle
The seat back angle of the vehicles surveyed ranged from 9 to 28
degrees. The average was 20 degrees with a standard deviation of 4
degrees (see Sullivan et. al (2011) and technical report). The seat pan
angle (the angle of the seat cushion to the horizontal) ranged from 7
to 23 degrees. The average seat pan angle was 13 degrees with a
standard deviation of 4 degrees.
The original Takata buck had a seat back angle and a seat pan angle
of 20 and 15 degrees, respectively. Both the seat back angle and the
seat pan angle are well within the ranges found in NHTSA's vehicle
survey, and are the same as the ECE R.44 bench seat. Therefore, these
angles were adopted in the SISA.
Armrest Thickness
The armrest thickness (protrusion of armrest in the door) for the
25 vehicles surveyed ranged from 25 mm to 105 mm (1 in to 4.1 in). One
vehicle was at or below 50 mm (2.1 in), 8 vehicles were between 51 mm
and 70 mm (2.0 in and 2.75 in), 10 vehicles were between 71 mm and 80
mm (2.75 in and 3.1 in), and 5 vehicles were above 81 mm (3.1 in). One
vehicle had no armrest.
The armrest thickness selected for the SISA sled system consists of
a 64 mm (2.5 in) thick padding material attached to a 51 mm (2 in)
thick door panel. The 64 mm (2.5 in) thickness of the armrest foam is
within the range of armrest thickness from surveyed vehicles.
Beltline and Armrest Heights
The beltline (window sill) and top of the armrest heights of the 24
surveyed vehicles were measured using the SGMF with respect to point A
(center of the hinge of the SGMF) (see Figure 4).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.003

The survey showed that the beltline heights varied between 413 mm
and 566 mm (16.2 in and 22.2 in) in height and the armrest heights
varied between 122 mm and 349 mm (4.8 in and 13.7 in) with respect to
point A. A 489 mm (19.2 in) beltline height and a 238 mm (9.3 in)
armrest height were found to be about the median values of the
vehicles' ranges. A 494 mm (19.4 in) beltline height and a 229 mm (9
in) armrest height were found to be about the average values for the
vehicles surveyed.
In NHTSA's sensitivity analysis, we conducted sled tests of
forward-facing and rear-facing CRS models and the Q3s dummy with the
beltline height at 479 mm (18.8 in) and at 500 mm (19.6 in) to
determine the effect of beltline height on dummy responses. Only 2 CRS
models showed slightly lower HIC15 values with the raised
windowsill. Of the 7 CRS models tested with both beltline heights,
chest deflection decreased when the beltline height was raised from 479
mm to 500 mm (18.8 to 19.6 in). Only one CRS model resulted in higher
chest deflections when the windowsill was raised, and 2 CRSs had chest
deflections that were almost unchanged.
Tests with the CRABI dummy in rear-facing CRSs showed that the
different beltline heights did not affect dummy responses. We believe
this was due to the fact that most rear-facing CRSs designed for
smaller children position

[[Page 4588]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4589]]

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

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

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

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

c. Dynamic Validation of the Sled Test

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4590]]

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

XII. Proposed Dynamic Performance

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

a. Q3s Test Dummy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4591]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. CRABI Dummy

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

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

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

[[Page 4592]]

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

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

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

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

c. Energy Absorption and Distribution

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

[[Page 4593]]

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

XIII. Fleet Testing

a. Q3s Dummy

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

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

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

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

b. CRABI Dummy

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

[[Page 4594]]

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

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

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

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

XIV. Countermeasure Assessment

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

[[Page 4595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.008

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

XV. Petition Regarding Deceleration Sled System

Dorel Juvenile Group Petition for Rulemaking

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

[[Page 4596]]

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

Discussion of Petition

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

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

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

XVI. Costs and Benefits

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

[[Page 4597]]

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

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

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

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

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

XVII. Effective Date

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

XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

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

[[Page 4598]]

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head
of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must also
provide a statement of the factual basis for this certification.
I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA
estimates there to be 29 manufacturers of child restraints, none of
which are small businesses. Based on our fleet testing, we believe that
most of the CRSs that would be subject to the proposed side impact
requirements would meet the proposed requirements without a need to
modify the CRS. For rear-facing infant seats and forward-facing
restraints with harnesses that need to be modified, the agency
estimates that the average incremental costs to each child restraint
system would be only $0.50 per unit to meet the proposed rule. This
incremental cost would not constitute a significant economic impact.
Further, the incremental cost is not significant compared to the retail
price of a child restraint system for infants and toddlers, which is in
the range of $45 to $350. These incremental costs, which are very small
compared to the overall price of the child restraint, can ultimately be
passed on to the purchaser.
For belt-positioning seats that do not meet the proposed side
impact requirements, the simplest course for a manufacturer would be to
re-label the restraint so that it is marketed for children not in a
weight class that would subject the CRS to the proposed requirements.
That is, the CRSs could be marketed as belt-positioning seats for
children weighing more than 18 kg (40 lb), instead of for children
weighing above 13.6 kg (30 lb).\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 4599]]

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

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law
causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion
regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort
litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules,
would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not
intend that this proposed rule would preempt state tort law that would
effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
than that established by today's proposed rule. Establishment of a
higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the
minimum standard proposed here. Without any conflict, there could not
be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

Civil Justice Reform

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. In this notice of proposed
rulemaking, we propose no ``collections of information'' (as defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(c)).

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)(Public Law 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
As explained above in this preamble, NHTSA reviewed the procedures
and

[[Page 4600]]

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides, in part:

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

NHTSA requests public comment on the ``regulatory approaches taken
by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter of this
rulemaking. In the discussion above on the NTTAA, we have noted that we
have reviewed the procedures and regulations developed globally to test
child restraints dynamically in the side impact environment, and found
the Takata test procedure to be the most suitable for our purposes.
Comments are requested on the above policy statement and the
implications it has for this rulemaking.

Regulation Identifier Number

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us
with your views.

XIX. Public Participation

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

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

[[Page 4601]]

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the docket. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the
Internet (https://regulations.gov).
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

0
2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding paragraph (k)(5), and by revising
paragraph (l)(3), to read as follows:

Sec. 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4602]]

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

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

[[Page 4603]]

the SORL is within the corridor shown in Figure 3.
(d) Performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient
temperature from 20.6 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
(e) The child restraint shall meet the requirements of S5 at each
of its seat back angle adjustment positions and restraint belt routing
positions, when the restraint is oriented in the direction recommended
by the manufacturer (e.g., forward or rearward) pursuant to S5.5 of
Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213), and tested with the test dummy
specified in S7 of this section.
S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.
(a) The child restraint centerline is positioned 300 mm from the
SISA bench seat edge (impact side) and attached in any of the following
manners.
(1) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
provided with the child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard
No. 213 (Sec. 571.213), except as provided in this paragraph. For
forward-facing restraints, attach the tether strap, if provided, to the
tether anchorage on the SISA. No other supplemental device to attach
the child restraint is used. Tighten belt systems used to attach the
restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N
and not more than 67 N.
(2) For rear-facing restraints, install the child restraint system
using only the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
child restraint system pursuant to S5.6 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device) is used.
Tighten belt systems used to attach the restraint to the SISA bench
seat to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N.
(3) For belt-positioning seats, use the lap and shoulder belt and
no tether or any other supplemental device.
(b) Select any dummy specified in S7 for testing child restraint
systems for use by children of the heights and weights for which the
system is recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213
(Sec. 571.213). The dummy is assembled, clothed and prepared as
specified in S8 and Part 572 of this chapter, as appropriate.
(c) The dummy is placed and positioned in the child restraint
system as specified in S9. Attach the child restraint belts used to
restrain the child within the system, if appropriate, as specified in
S9.
(d) Belt adjustment. Shoulder and pelvic belts that directly
restrain the dummy are adjusted as follows: Tighten the belt system
used to restrain the child within the child restraint system to a
tension of not less than 9 N on the webbing at the top of each dummy
shoulder and the pelvic region. Tighten the belt systems used to attach
the restraint to the SISA bench seat to a tension of not less than 53.5
N and not more than 67 N. For belt-positioning seats, the lap portion
of the lap and shoulder belt is tightened to a tension of not less than
53.5 N and not more than 67 N. The shoulder portion is tightened to a
tension of not less than 9 N and not more than 18 N.
(e) Accelerate the test platform in accordance with S6.1.1(b).
(f) All instrumentation and data reduction is in conformance with
SAE J211 JUN80 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5).
S6.2 Buckle release test procedure.
(a) After completion of the testing specified in S6.1 and before
the buckle is unlatched, tie a self-adjusting sling to each wrist and
ankle of the test dummy in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of
Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213), without disturbing the belted dummy
and the child restraint system.
(b) Pull the sling that is tied to the dummy restrained in the
child restraint system and apply the following force: 90 N for a system
tested with a 12-month-old dummy; 200 N for a system tested with a 3-
year-old dummy. For an add-on child restraint, the force is applied in
the manner illustrated in Figure 4 of Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213)
and by pulling the sling horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the
SISA.
(c) While applying the force specified in S6.2 (b), and using the
device shown in Figure 8 of Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213) for
pushbutton-release buckles, apply the release force in the manner and
location specified in S6.2.1, for that type of buckle. Measure the
force required to release the buckle.
S7 Test dummies. (Subparts referenced in this section are of part
572 of this chapter.)
S7.1 Dummy selection. At NHTSA's option, any dummy specified in
S7.1(a) or S7.1(b) may be selected for testing child restraint systems
for use by children of the height and mass for which the system is
recommended in accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec.
571.213). A child restraint that meets the criteria in two or more of
the following paragraphs may be tested with any of the test dummies
specified in those paragraphs.
(a) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 5 kg (11 lb) but not greater than 10 kg (22 lb), or
by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 650 mm but not greater than 850 mm, is
tested with a 12-month-old test dummy (CRABI) conforming to part 572
subpart R.
(b) A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in
accordance with S5.5 of Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213) for use either
by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having
a mass greater than 10 kg (22 lb) but not greater than 18 kg (40 lb),
or by children in a specified height range that includes any children
whose height is greater than 850 mm but not greater than 1100 mm, is
tested with a 3-year-old test dummy (Q3s) conforming to part 572
subpart W.
S8 Dummy clothing and preparation.
S8.1 Type of clothing.
(a) 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R). When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part
572, subpart R, is clothed in a cotton-polyester based tight fitting
sweat shirt with long sleeves and ankle long pants whose combined
weight is not more than 0.25 kg.
(b) 3-year-old side impact dummy (Q3s) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart
W). When used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49
CFR part 572, subpart W, is clothed as specified in that subpart,
except without shoes.
S8.2 Preparing dummies. Before being used in testing under this
standard, test dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature
from 20.6[deg] to 22.2 [deg]C and at any relative humidity from 10
percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours.
S9 Positioning the dummy and attaching the belts used to restrain
the child within the child restraint system and/or to attach the system
to the SISA bench seat.
S9.1 12-month-old dummy (CRABI) (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart R).
Position the test dummy according to the instructions for child
positioning that the manufacturer provided with the child restraint
system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213),
while conforming to the following:
(a) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the 12-
month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that the back of the
dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the system. Attach all
appropriate child

[[Page 4604]]

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

[[Page 4605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.010

[[Page 4606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.011

[[Page 4607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.012

[[Page 4608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JA14.013

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.