Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-13658

Rule2022-13658

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

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 30, 2022

Effective

August 1, 2022

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Abstract

This final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) (Standard) No. 213, "Child restraint systems," and adds FMVSS No. 213a, which is referenced by Standard No. 213. This final rule fulfills a statutory mandate set forth in the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act" (MAP-21) that directed the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to issue a final rule to improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39234-39317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13658]

[[Page 39233]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 125

June 30, 2022

Part III

Department of Homeland Security

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

49 Part 571

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 39234]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0051]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) (Standard) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' and adds FMVSS
No. 213a, which is referenced by Standard No. 213. This final rule
fulfills a statutory mandate set forth in the ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21) that directed the Secretary
of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to issue a final rule to
improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems
during side impacts.

DATES:
Effective date: August 1, 2022. The incorporation by reference of
the publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of August 1, 2022.
Compliance date: June 30, 2025. Optional early compliance is
permitted.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received no later than August 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>,
including any personal information provided. To facilitate social
distancing due to COVID-19, please email a copy of the petition to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc9294888f9dd28b999e919d8f88998ebc989388d29b938a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Privacy Act. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is
able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices">https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, telephone
202-366-6345, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ccffee5fff8e5e2eda2c9efe4e9e1e9e2e8e5edcce8e3f8a2ebe3fa">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For legal issues,
Deirdre Fujita or Hannah Fish, Office of the Chief Counsel, telephone
202-366-2992, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7e3c2c289e1d2cdced3c6e7c3c8d389c0c8d1">[email&#160;protected]</a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7139101f1f10195f3718021931151e055f161e07">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The
mailing address of these officials is the 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. Safety Need
III. Statutory Mandate
IV. Guiding Principles
V. Overview of the NPRM and Comments Received
a. Overview of the NPRM
b. Summary of the Comments
VI. Response to the Comments (Wide-Reaching Issues)
a. Are efforts better spent elsewhere on child restraint
systems?
b. Will child restraints become excessively large and heavy?
c. More Bulk Is Not Necessarily Advantageous; the 2017 Test
Program
d. The 40-lb Limit for Coverage of the Standard
e. Improving Side Impact Protection for Children Older Than 3-
Years-Old
f. Weight as a Limiting Factor
g. Labeling CRSs for Children Weighing Over 18.1 kg (40 lb)
1. Label as ``Not Tested in Side Impacts''
2. Head Under Window Sill
VII. Aspects of the FMVSS 213a Test Procedure
a. Overview
b. Side Impact Seat Assembly Characteristics
1. Seat Characteristics
i. Rear Seat Cushion Stiffness
ii. Lower Anchorages and Top Tether Anchorages of the CRAS
2. Door Characteristics
i Beltline Height
ii. Door and Armrest Thickness and Stiffness
3. Honeycomb
4. SISA Technical Drawings
5. Other Testing Issues
i. Right-Side Impacts
ii. Sliding Seat Bearings
iii. Seat Belt Interference
c. Sled Kinematic Parameters
1. General
2. Specific Issues
i. Sliding Seat Acceleration Profile
ii. Tuning the Test To Account for Lighter Dummies
iii. Acceleration Corridor
3. Door Parameters
4. Relative Door Velocity Profile
5. Relative Velocity at Impact Time (T<INF>0</INF>)--Tolerance
6. Longitudinal Crash Component
d. Test Set Up and Procedure
1. CRS Attachment
i. Lower Anchor and/or Seat Belt CRS Installation
ii. Tethered vs. Non-Tethered CRS Installation
iii. Distance Between Edge of Armrest and Edge of Seat
e. Dummy Positioning
f. Dummy Selection
g. Miscellaneous Comments on the Test Procedure, Including Test
Setup, Sled Instrumentation, and Data Processing
h. Additional Changes
VIII. Performance Requirements
a. Q3s
1. Q3s Sourcing
2. Biofidelity Issues
3. Aspects of Testing With the Q3s
i. Reversibility
ii. HIII 3-Year-Old Child Test Dummy as an Alternative
4. Q3s Performance Measures
i. Head Injury Criterion (HIC)
ii. Head Contact (Not Assessed)
iii. Chest Deflection
b. CRABI 12-Month-Old
1. Alternative ATDs
2. Durability
3. Head-to-Door Contact
4. Component Test
5. CRS System Integrity and Energy Distribution
IX. Repeatability and Reproducibility
X. Lead Time and Effective Date
XI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

This final rule amends FMVSS No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,''
to establish side impact performance requirements for child restraint
systems (CRS) designed to seat children weighing up to 18.1 kilograms
(kg) (40 pounds (lb)), or for children in a height range that includes
heights up to 1100 millimeters (43.3 inches.) The side impact
performance requirements are established in a new FMVSS No. 213a, which
is referenced by Standard No. 213. This final rule fulfills a statutory
mandate set forth in MAP-21 that directed the Secretary of
Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to issue a final rule to improve
the protection of children seated in child restraint systems during
side impacts.
Standard No. 213a requires child restraints designed to seat
children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb), or for children in a height
range that includes heights up to 1100 millimeters (43.3 inches) to
meet performance criteria when tested in a dynamic test replicating a
vehicle-to-vehicle side impact. The child restraints must provide
proper restraint, manage side

[[Page 39235]]

crash forces, and protect against harmful head and chest contact with
intruding structures. In addition, child restraints will be required to
meet other performance requirements in the sled test to ensure, among
other things, the restraint can withstand crash forces from a side
impact without collapsing or fragmenting in a manner that could harm
the child. This new standard will reduce the number of children killed
or injured in side crashes.

I. Executive Summary

Front and side crashes account for most child occupant fatalities.
FMVSS No. 213 currently specifies performance requirements that child
restraint systems (CRSs) must meet in a sled test simulating a frontal
impact. This final rule expands the standard to adopt a side impact
test. Child restraints subject to this final rule must pass the new
side impact test in addition to the frontal impact test.
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 years. 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, energy absorbing structures
between the occupant and the impacting vehicle or object. The door
collapses into the passenger compartment and the occupants contact the
door relatively quickly after the crash at a high relative velocity.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In a typical vehicle-to-vehicle side impact similar to the one
represented in Standard No. 214, ``Side impact protection'' (49 CFR
571.214), the striking vehicle first interacts with the door structure
of the struck vehicle and commences to crush the door, causing it to
intrude laterally into the vehicle compartment. The striking vehicle
then engages the sill of the struck vehicle and begins to push the
struck vehicle away. At this point, the occupant sitting on the struck
side of the vehicle experiences the struck vehicle seat moving away
from the impacting vehicle while the door intrudes towards him or her.
The intruding door impacts the occupant and the occupant is accelerated
with the door along the impact direction until the occupant reaches the
velocity of the struck and striking vehicle.
Standard No. 214, protects against unreasonable risk of injury or
death to occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes and other side
crashes. The standard has benefited all occupants,\2\ but due to their
size and fragility, infants and young children are dependent on child
restraint systems to supplement those protections. Child restraints
with internal harnesses (commonly called ``car seats,'' ``child seats''
or ``safety seats'') are highly effective safety devices. Although
child seats are not currently subject to side impact testing, NHTSA
estimates that these types of child restraints are already 42 percent
effective in preventing death in side crashes of children 0- to 3-
years-old.\3\ This estimated degree of effectiveness is high, and is
only 11 percentage points lower than Child Restraint System (CRS)
effectiveness in frontal crashes (53 percent). Child safety seats are
effective because they restrain the child within the child seat and
prevent harmful contact with interior vehicle components, and have
padding and an outer shell structure that shields the child and absorbs
some of the crash forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Kahane, C.J. (2015, January). Lives saved by vehicle safety
technologies and associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,
1960 to 2012--Passenger cars and LTVs--With reviews of 26 FMVSS and
the effectiveness of their associated safety technologies in
reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes. (Report No. DOT HS 812
069). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Link: <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069</a>.
\3\ 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-year-old children to be 42 percent in side
crashes and 53 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 NPRM docket (<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0012-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2014-0012-0002</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because MAP-21 directed NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 213 to improve
side impact protection, NHTSA designed this final rule to work within
the framework of the existing frontal standard. Child restraint systems
are tested in FMVSS No. 213 when attached to a standardized seat
assembly representative of a passenger vehicle seat. Child restraints
are tested with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) (test dummies)
representative of the children for whom the CRS is recommended.\4\
FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraints to limit the amount of inertial
load that can be exerted on the head and chest of the dummy during the
dynamic test. The standard requires child restraints to meet head
excursion \5\ limits to reduce the possibility of head injury from
contact with vehicle interior surfaces and ejection. Child restraints
must also maintain system integrity (i.e., not fracture or separate in
such a way as to harm a child), and have no contactable surface that
can harm a child in a crash. There are requirements to ensure belt
webbing can safely restrain the child, and that buckles can be swiftly
unlatched after a crash by an adult but cannot be easily unbuckled by
an unsupervised child. Child restraints other than booster seats and
harnesses \6\ must pass performance requirements when attached to the
standard seat assembly with only a lap belt,\7\ and, in a separate
assessment, with only the lower anchorages of a child restraint
anchorage system (CRAS).\8\ The CRSs must meet more stringent head
excursion requirements in another test where a top tether, if provided,
may be attached. Belt-positioning (booster) seats are tested on the
standard seat assembly using a Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Standard No. 213 specifies the use of test dummies
representing a newborn, a 12-month-old, 3- and 6-year-old, weighted
6-year-old, and 10-year-old child. The ATDs other than the newborn
are equipped with instrumentation measuring crash forces, but NHTSA
restricts some measurements from the weighted 6-year-old and 10-
year-old dummies due to technical limits of the dummies.
\5\ Head excursion refers to the distance the dummy's head
translates forward in FMVSS No. 213's simulated frontal crash test.
\6\ These types of child restraint systems are defined in FMVSS
No. 213.
\7\ As explained in more detail below, NHTSA published an NPRM
on November 2, 2020 (85 FR 69388) to amend the standard seat
assembly in FMVSS No. 213 ``to better simulate a single
representative motor vehicle rear seat.'' Among other matters, the
NPRM proposes replacing the lap belt test with a lap and shoulder
belt (Type 2 belt) test.
\8\ Commonly called ``LATCH,'' which refers to Lower Anchors and
Tethers for Children, an acronym developed to refer to the child
restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for
installation in motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.225, ``Child restraint
anchorage systems''). A child restraint anchorage system 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 child restraint anchorage system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule establishes requirements for a side impact test
that are equivalent to those described above, and makes child restraint
systems even more protective of child occupants than they are now. It
adopts performance thresholds that ensure child restraints protect
against unreasonable risk of head and chest injury in side crashes, and
a performance test that objectively assesses and assures achievement of
such performance.

[[Page 39236]]

The standard adopted by this final rule applies to child restraints
for children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) or for children up to 1100
millimeters (mm) (43.3 inches, or 3 feet, 7 inches) in standing
height.\9\ These children would be virtually all 3-year-olds and almost
all 4-year-olds. The 18.1 kg (40 lb) threshold is greater than the
weight of a 97th percentile 3-year-old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and is
approximately the weight of an 85th percentile 4-year-old. The 1100 mm
(43.3 inches) height threshold is more than the height of a 97th
percentile 3-year-old (1024 mm (40.3 inches)) and corresponds to the
height of a 97th percentile 4-year-old. While the standard would apply
to child restraints that are recommended for use by children weighing
less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) or with heights under 1100 mm (43.3 inches),
as explained in a later section, the countermeasures (padding and side
structure) designed into a safety seat to meet the standard may also
provide side impact protection even as the child surpasses the 18.1 kg
(40 lb) or 1100 mm (43.3 inches) mark. Many child safety seats are
recommended for children much heavier than 18.1 kg (40 lb) or taller
than 1100 mm (43.3 inches). Children kept in such seats will benefit
from the countermeasures as they grow heavier than 18.1 kg (40 lb) or
taller than 1100 mm (43.3 inches). NHTSA quantified the benefits of
this rule for children up to age 4 but believes that children older
than age 4 would benefit from this final rule as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The agency added a height provision to make the new
standard's applicability clear to booster seat manufacturers who
choose not to label their restraints with a weight recommendation.
Although all current belt-positioning boosters are labeled with both
height and weight recommendations, FMVSS No. 213 permits
manufacturers of belt-positioning booster seats to delete the
reference to maximum weight (see FMVSS No. 213, S5.5.2(f)). In view
of that provision, for manufacturers that only provide a height
limit, the application section of FMVSS No. 213a will be clear as to
the applicability of the standard to their restraints. When this
final rule preamble refers to a ``40 lb weight limit'' we mean the
term to be synonymous with a height limit of 1100 mm for belt-
positioning boosters that only provide a height limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule adopts a dynamic sled test simulating a full-scale
vehicle-to-vehicle side impact, which is the first-of-its-kind
simulating both an intruding door and a longitudinal crash component.
Child restraints recommended \10\ for children weighing 13.6 to 18.1 kg
(30 to 40 lb) are tested with an instrumented side impact test dummy
representing a 3-year-old child, called the Q3s dummy.\11\ Child
restraints designed for children weighing up to 13.6 kg (30 lb) are
tested with an established 12-month-old child test dummy (the 12-month-
old Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummy).\12\ The new
standard requires CRSs to restrain the dummy in the side test, manage
side crash forces and prevent harmful head contact with side
structures. Child restraints tested with the Q3s must also limit crash
forces to the dummy's chest. Following the dynamic side impact test,
child restraints will be assessed for their compliance with
requirements for system integrity, contactable surfaces, and buckle
release, just like they are following Standard No. 213's frontal impact
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ When we describe a child restraint as ``recommended for''
children of a certain height or weight range, we mean the child
restraint manufacturer is manufacturing for sale, selling or
offering the CRS for sale as suitable for children in that height or
weight range.
\11\ The Q3s is NHTSA's first child test dummy designed for side
impacts. NHTSA published a final rule on November 3, 2020 that
adopted the Q3s into NHTSA's regulation for anthropomorphic test
devices. 85 FR 69898.
\12\ 49 CFR part 572, subpart R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work Preceding This Final Rule

NHTSA published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding
this final rule on January 28, 2014 (79 FR 4570).\13\ Enhanced side
impact protection for children has long been a priority for NHTSA.
NHTSA laid the necessary groundwork for this final rule over the years
preceding and since the NPRM.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Docket No. NHTSA 2014-0012.
\14\ An overview of NHTSA's work developing FMVSS No. 213a can
be found in section IX of the January 28, 2014 NPRM, 79 FR at 4579-
4590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To develop the NPRM, NHTSA examined data on the fatalities of young
children to see how children are killed and injured in side crashes,
the characteristics of the crashes that are injuring them, and the
types of injuries they suffer. Among CRS-restrained children killed in
side crashes, about 60 percent were in near-side impacts,\15\ leading
NHTSA to focus development on a near-side sled test. Intrusion was
found to be an important causative factor for moderate to serious
injury, which led NHTSA to concentrate on developing a side impact test
procedure that included intrusion into the occupant space.\16\ Data
indicated that children restrained in child restraints exhibited more
head injuries (59 percent) compared to torso injuries (22 percent) and
injuries to extremities (14 percent). NHTSA used these and other data
to develop the first-of-its-kind safety standard on child side impact
protection involving a near-side impact with a longitudinal crash
component and an intruding vehicle door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See NPRM for this final rule, 79 FR 4570, Table 6. The NPRM
also noted that among CRS-restrained children with moderate to
higher severity injuries in side crashes, over 60 percent were in
near-side impacts (Table 8).
\16\ Sherwood, see footnotes 40, 43 and 44 of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following publication of the NPRM, NHTSA conducted a multi-year
research program from 2014 to 2016 to broaden the assessment of the Q3s
in providing repeatable and reproducible test results in side impact
testing. NHTSA designed a test program involving Humanetics Innovative
Solutions, Inc. (a dummy manufacturer), several private dummy owners
(CRS manufacturers), two independent testing labs, and NHTSA's Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC). This work validated the performance
specifications of the NPRM, thus better ensuring that all future Q3s
dummies will be uniform, and provided information for NHTSA to use in
prescribing specifications for the Q3s. Information from that program
refined the set of engineering drawings and the series of dummy-only
impact tests used for production and qualification of the Q3s.\17\ The
test program enabled NHTSA to produce a set of fully-vetted engineering
specifications and an objective set of qualification standards. These
materials guarantee a high level of uniformity in any conforming Q3s
unit used to assess CRS performance in a side impact test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The drawings describe every part on the dummy and may be
used to inspect dummies purchased from a dummy manufacturer. The
impact tests used by CRS manufacturers and other end-users serve as
a final check to ensure that the assembled dummy will perform as
prescribed by NHTSA in 49 CFR part 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through research from 2015 to 2017, NHTSA adjusted the side impact
sled test assembly to reduce variability in results and more closely
align the assembly with current vehicle seats. In 2017, NHTSA undertook
fleet testing to obtain current data of CRS performance in side impacts
using the refined side impact seat assembly. These research projects
are discussed in detail in sections below in this preamble.

FMVSS No. 214 and No. 226

FMVSS No. 214 played a critical role in developing this final rule.
NHTSA designed the side impact test to replicate the FMVSS No. 214
moving deformable barrier (MDB) test, as the MDB test simulates a full-
scale severe intersection collision of an impacting vehicle
(represented by a 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) MDB) traveling at 48.3 km/h (30
mph) striking the side of a test vehicle traveling at 24 km/h (15
mph).\18\ The MDB test replicated in this final rule involves a change
of velocity of

[[Page 39237]]

approximately 30.5 km/h (19 mph). NHTSA's analysis of field data (NASS-
CDS 1995-2009) found that 92 percent of near-side crashes for
restrained children (0 to 12 years-old) involved a change in velocity
of 30.5 km/h (19 mph) or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ FMVSS No. 214 MDB test (49 CFR 571.214, S7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA designed this rule to account for the safety countermeasures
installed in vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 214 as practicably possible, to
make a realistic assessment of how a CRS will perform when subjected to
a side crash in the real world. To achieve this, NHTSA used compliance
test data from MDB tests where the vehicle passed the FMVSS No. 214
test, to replicate the characteristics of passenger-carrying vehicles
on the road. Furthermore, NHTSA designed FMVSS No. 213a to replicate a
collision of the striking MDB with a small vehicle rather than a larger
vehicle. NHTSA sought to replicate the characteristics of a small
passenger car, as opposed to a larger vehicle, because smaller cars
generally present a more demanding side impact test condition than
larger vehicles, since smaller cars generally have a higher change in
velocity than larger ones when impacted by the same MDB. Testing child
restraints under the more severe condition better ensures they will
provide the threshold level of protection required by the standard in
both small cars and large cars than if they were assessed under
conditions replicating large cars alone.
Standard No. 214's pole test and FMVSS No. 226, Ejection
mitigation,\19\ were also integral to development of this final rule.
To meet the pole test, manufacturers equip passenger vehicles with side
air bags in front seating positions to protect against unreasonable
risk of head and chest injuries. To meet the pole test and FMVSS No.
226 requirements, manufacturers install side curtain air bags \20\ to
deploy in both side impacts and in rollovers, and design them to cover
all side windows at the vehicle's front, second and third rows, from
the roof line to the window sill. Consequently, vehicles are currently
produced with side curtain air bags that cover the entire side window
for front and rear row seats in both side impacts and rollovers. NHTSA
developed FMVSS No. 213a recognizing that these side curtain air bags
can protect passengers in rear seating positions against unreasonable
risk of head injury in side impact crashes, including older children in
booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ FMVSS No. 214, S9. The pole test protects against side
crashes of passenger vehicles into structures such as telephone
poles and trees. It is a near-side impact. NHTSA established FMVSS
No. 226 (49 CFR 571. 226) in 2011 (76 FR 3212). The standard was
phased in starting in 2013, with full compliance required for
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2017.
\20\ In the final rule adopting the pole test into FMVSS No.
214, NHTSA anticipated that side curtain air bags installed to meet
FMVSS No. 214 would also be the countermeasure to meet the then-
pending ejection mitigation standard. NHTSA anticipated side impact
curtain air bags would extend to rear seating positions, and that
occupants in rear seating positions would benefit from the side
curtain air bags in side impacts. NHTSA stated: ``We believe that
manufacturers will install curtains in increasing numbers of
vehicles in response to this [FMVSS No. 214] final rule, the
voluntary commitment, and in anticipation of NHTSA's ejection
mitigation rulemaking. The curtains will provide head protection to
front and rear seat occupants in side impacts.'' 72 FR 51911, 51933;
Sept. 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details of This Final Rule

The side impact sled test adopted by this final rule tests child
restraints in a manner that simulates the vehicle acceleration and
intruding door in a realistic side impact.\21\ The test seat assembly
on which a CRS is tested replicates the rear seating position nearest
to the side impact (near-side impact), as data show near-side impacts
are more injurious than far-side impacts, accounting for 81 percent of
moderate-to-critical injuries to restrained 0- to 3-year-old children
involved in side crashes. Most of these moderate-to-critical injuries
in near-side impacts are due to impact with interior surfaces in the
vehicle, and in near-side impacts, the interior surface is usually the
intruding door.\22\ In far-side impacts, the impact surfaces vary
considerably depending on the crash dynamics, and therefore are
difficult to characterize. For these reasons, standards established
worldwide for side impact protection of children focus on near-side
impacts, and FMVSS No. 214's moving deformable barrier and pole tests
involve only near-side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Data show that door intrusion is a causative factor for
moderate and serious injury to children in side impacts. Arbogast,
supra.
\22\ Arbogast, et al., ``Injury Risks for Children in Child
Restraint Systems in Side Impact Crashes'' (2004); Arbogast, et al.,
``Protection of Children Restrained in Child Safety Seats in Side
Impact Crashes'' (2010); McCray et al., ``Injuries to Children One
to Three Years Old in Side Impact Crashes'' (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule applies to CRSs designed to seat children weighing
up to 18.1 kg (40 lb). NHTSA did not specify a limit above 18.1 kg (40
lb) because there is no side impact dummy representative of children
weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) that is proven to provide the
reliable test measurements required of a test instrument used in the
FMVSSs.\23\ NHTSA is concerned that, without a valid test dummy, CRSs
for heavier children may ``pass'' a side impact test with a smaller
dummy but the dummy would not meaningfully assess the performance of
the CRS in protecting a larger child. Raising the limit above 18.1 kg
(40 lb) could engender a false sense of security that the CRS
adequately protects the heavier (larger) children when, in fact, the
assessment of performance was meaningless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ As noted earlier, the final rule applies to CRSs designed
for children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) and with standing height
up to 1100 mm (43.3 inches), which covers more than 97 percent of 3-
year-old children and about 85 percent of 4-year-old children. The
Q3s child dummy has weight and height representative of an average
3-year-old child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also decided to adopt a 40-lb weight limit after considering
the overall side impact protection provided by the FMVSSs and the
ongoing and potential work on child restraint safety. As explained
above, FMVSS No. 214's side impact tests were highly important to
NHTSA's design of FMVSS No. 213a and implementation of MAP-21. Children
over 40 lb would be provided side impact protection by remaining in a
CRS meeting FMVSS No. 213a for as long as the manufacturer recommends,
which typically exceeds a weight above 40 lb.\24\ When children outgrow
their safety seats, they transition to a booster seat, which on average
raises a seated child by 82 mm (3.22 inches),\25\ which would position
the child high enough to benefit from the vehicle's side curtain air
bags installed to meet Standards Nos. 214 and 226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Out of the 107 models of forward-facing CRSs with internal
harness (convertibles, combination and all-in-one CRSs) in the
market, 85.9% have a maximum weight recommendation of 65 pounds,
10.2% have a maximum weight recommendation of 40 pounds and only
3.7% have a 50 pound maximum weight recommendation.
\25\ The agency determined the height that a booster seat raises
a seated child (boosting height) by measuring the difference in the
H-point (marker on the hip) of the HIII-6-year-old dummy when the
dummy is seated on the side impact seat assembly specified in this
final rule (SISA) with no booster seat and when the dummy is seated
on the SISA in a booster seat. The boosting height measured for 15
booster seat models ranged from 43 mm (1.69 inches) to 104 mm (4.09
inches) with an average boosting height of 83 mm (3.26 inches). A
document with the measurements is docketed with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 2, 2020, NHTSA proposed to update FMVSS No. 213's
frontal impact test requirements, including the seat assembly and other
changes to the standard.\26\ In that

[[Page 39238]]

NPRM, NHTSA proposed that booster seats must be labeled as suitable
only for children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb).\27\ This final
rule is consistent with that proposal to ensure that children remain in
car seats providing side impact protection longer, and will transition
to booster seats only when they are large enough to take advantage of
the vehicle's side air bag countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020, Docket NHTSA-2020-0093.
Section 31501(b) of MAP-21 Subtitle E, directed NHTSA to undertake
rulemaking to amend the standard seat assembly in FMVSS No. 213 ``to
better simulate a single representative motor vehicle rear seat.''
Among other matters, as part of updating the standard seat assembly,
the NPRM proposed replacing the lap belt currently on the test
assembly with a lap and shoulder belt. MAP-21 requires NHTSA to
issue a final rule adopting an updated seat assembly.
\27\ 85 FR at 69427, col. 3. NHTSA currently recommends that
children riding forward-facing should be restrained in CRSs with
internal harnesses (car safety seats) as long as possible before
transitioning to a booster seat. <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec">https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec</a>. FMVSS No. 213 currently
permits booster seats only to be recommended for children weighing
at least 13.6 kg (30 lb) (S5.5.2(f)). Based on an analysis of field
data and other considerations, NHTSA believes the 13.6 kg (30 lb)
value should be raised. Thirty pounds corresponds to the weight of a
50th percentile 3-year-old, and to the weight of a 95th percentile
18-month-old; i.e., children too small to be safely protected in a
booster seat. In the November 2, 2020 NPRM, NHTSA proposed to amend
S5.5.2(f) to raise the 13.6 kg (30 lb) limit to 18.2 kg (40 lb),
which is greater than the weight of a 97th percentile 3-year-old
(17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the weight of an 85th
percentile 4-year-old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Benefits and Costs

NHTSA estimates that this final rule will reduce 3.7 fatalities and
41 (40.9) non-fatal injuries (MAIS \28\ 1-5) annually (see Table 1
below).\29\ The equivalent lives and the monetized benefits were
estimated in accordance with guidance issued in March 2021 by the
Office of the Secretary \30\ regarding the treatment of value of a
statistical life in regulatory analyses. This final rule is estimated
to save 15.1 equivalent lives annually. The monetized annual benefits
of this final rule at 3 and 7 percent discount rates are $169.0 million
and $152.2 million, respectively (Table 2). NHTSA estimates that the
annual cost of this final rule is approximately $7.37 million. The
countermeasures may include larger wings and padding with energy
absorption characteristics that cost, on average, approximately $0.58
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 $144.8 million (7 percent
discount rate) to $161.6 million (3 percent discount rate) as shown in
Table 4. Because this final rule is cost beneficial just by comparing
costs to monetized economic benefits, and there is a net benefit, NHTSA
has not provided a net cost per equivalent life saved as there is no
additional value provided by such an estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 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.
\29\ NHTSA has developed a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(FRIA) that discusses issues relating to the potential costs,
benefits, and other impacts of this regulatory action. The FRIA is
available in the docket for this final rule 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.
\30\ <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis">https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis</a>.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities.............................................. 3.7
Non-fatal injuries (MAIS 1 to 5)........................ 41 (40.9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Estimated Monetized Benefits
[In millions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of
Economic statistical Total benefits
benefits life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate......................................... $26.24 $142.72 $168.97
7 Percent Discount Rate......................................... 23.63 128.53 152.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Estimated Costs
[2020 Economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost per CRS designed for $0.58.
children in a weight range that includes
weights up to 40 lb.
------------------------------
Total annual cost...................... 7.37 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4--Annualized Costs and Benefits
[In millions of 2020 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Annualized
costs benefits Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate................................................ $7.37 $168.97 $161.60
7% Discount Rate................................................ 7.37 152.16 144.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM

For the convenience of the reader, the notable changes from the
NPRM are described below. They are explained in detail in relevant
sections throughout this preamble. More minor changes (e.g.,
positioning the arm of the Q3s) are not highlighted below but are
discussed in the sections of this preamble relating to the topic.
<bullet> The side impact seat assembly (SISA) specified in this
final rule is slightly different from the proposed

[[Page 39239]]

SISA in four ways: aspects of the representative vehicle seat cushion
(characteristics of the seat foam), the height of the seat back,
location of the child restraint anchorages and seat belts, and vertical
position of the door and armrest. These changes were made to make it
easier to source foam, and to reflect real-world vehicle seats more
accurately. The changes align with the November 2, 2020 NPRM that
proposes to update FMVSS No. 213's frontal impact test seat
assembly.\31\ Stiffening structures were also added to the sliding seat
to minimize vibrations in compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ 85 FR 69388, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> The tolerance in the relative velocity (V<INF>0</INF>)
between the sliding seat and the door assembly at time of initial
contact (T<INF>0</INF>) is reduced in the final rule from the proposed
31.3 <plus-minus> 0.8 km/h to 31.3 <plus-minus> 0.64 km/h to improve
repeatability and reproducibility of the test.
<bullet> The NPRM proposed that the test platform velocity during
the time of interaction of the door with the CRS would be no greater
than V<INF>0</INF> and not less than V<INF>0</INF>-1 km/h. This final
rule specifies the test platform velocity as no lower than 2.5 km/h
less than its velocity at time = T<INF>0</INF>. This change provides
more flexibility to different test facilities to meet the test
specifications while maintaining satisfactory test repeatability and
reproducibility.
<bullet> This final rule includes specifications for a relative
door velocity corridor (the velocity of the simulated door assembly
relative to the sliding seat) to improve the repeatability and
reproducibility of the test procedure. NHTSA requested comment in the
NPRM on the merits of a corridor and decided, after reviewing the
comments, that a corridor increases the repeatability and
reproducibility of the test when different types of sled systems \32\
are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ There are acceleration and deceleration type sled systems.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> NHTSA tentatively believed in the NPRM that CRS
performance would not be affected if a CRS were attached to the SISA by
a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system, assuming that a
seat belt would be routed through a belt path near to where the
anchorage attachment points are located. NHTSA thus proposed to test
child restraints by attaching them only by the child restraint
anchorage system, and requested comment on the issue. Several
commenters supported testing with the seat belt attachment in addition
to the child restraint anchorage system attachment. After considering
the comments, and after observing that some newer child restraint
designs have belt paths no longer near the CRS's anchorage attachment
points, NHTSA has included a test configuration using a Type 2 seat
belt (lap and shoulder belt) with the CRS's top tether attached, if
provided.
<bullet> The NPRM proposed using the 12-month-old CRABI dummy to
test child restraints recommended for children weighing 5 to 10 kg (11
to 22 lb) and the Q3s dummy (representative of a 3-year-old child) to
test child restraints for children weighing 10 to 18.1 kg (22 to 40
lb). After reviewing comments on this issue, NHTSA has decided to raise
the 10 kg (22 lb) dividing line to 13.6 kg (30 lb) so that infant
carriers would not be subject to testing with the Q3s 3-year-old
dummy.\33\ Testing with the Q3s does not make sense as the dummy is too
large to fit an infant carrier and is not representative of the
children for whom the restraint is recommended. Testing infant carriers
with only the CRABI 12-month-old dummy better aligns the standard's
test requirements with real world use of the restraints.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ An infant carrier is a rear-facing CRS designed to be
easily used inside and outside of the vehicle. They typically are
sold for use by children in a weight range from newborn to 18.5 kg
(40 lb). An infant carrier is designed to be easily removed from the
vehicle and has a carrying handle that allows caregivers to tote the
infant outside of the vehicle without having to remove the child
from the restraint system. Some come with a base that stays inside
the vehicle, enabling a simple means of reattaching the carrier when
it is used as a CRS. This change is consistent with the November 2,
2020 NPRM on FMVSS No. 213's frontal crash test requirements.
\34\ This statement assumes the carriers are not designed to
accommodate child weights over 13.6 kg (30 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Safety Need

The motor vehicle occupant fatality rate among children 3-years-old
\35\ and younger has declined from 4.5 in 1975 to 1.1 in 2019 (per
100,000 occupants). This decline in fatality rate is partially
attributed to the increased use of child restraint systems. The 2019
National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS) found that
restraint use in the rear row (excluding third or further rows) was 98
percent for children less than 1-year-old, 95 percent for 1- to 3-year-
old, and 88 percent for 4- to 7-year-old.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ As used in this document, ``children 3-years-old and
younger'' includes children up to the day before they turn 4-years-
old.
\36\ Enriquez, J. (2021, May). The 2019 National Survey of the
Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT HS 813 033). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813033">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813033</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the 2019 FARS data files, there were 36,096 persons
killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2019, 177 of whom were children aged
3 and younger killed in passenger vehicle crashes. Among the 177 child
occupant fatalities, 44 (25 percent) were unrestrained, 7 (4 percent)
were restrained by vehicle seat belts, 111 (63 percent) were restrained
in CRSs, and 13 (7 percent) had unknown restraint use.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ Children, Traffic Safety Facts--2009 data, DOT HS 811 387,
NHTSA, <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1996, the agency estimated the effectiveness of CRSs and found
the devices to reduce fatalities by 71 percent for children younger
than 1-year-old and by 54 percent for toddlers 1- to 4-years-old in
passenger vehicles.\38\ For this rulemaking, the agency updated the
1996 effectiveness estimates by conducting a similar analysis using the
FARS data files for the years 1995-2009.\39\ In the updated
analysis,\40\ 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-year-old, the 0- to 1-year-old age group was combined with the 1- to
3-year-old 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-years-old and 43 percent effective among
children 4- to 7-years-old. In non-rollover side crashes, CRSs
currently in use are 42 percent effective in preventing fatalities
among 0- to 3-year-old children and 51 percent effective among 4- to 7-
year-old children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ ``Revised Estimates of Child Restraint Effectiveness,''
Research Note, supra.
\39\ Details of the analysis method are provided in the
supporting technical document in the docket for the NPRM.
\40\ Details of the updated analysis are provided in the
supporting technical document in the docket for the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA estimates that the lives of 325 children 3-years-old and
younger were saved in 2017 due to the use of child restraint
systems.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis (2019, March).
Lives saved in 2017 by restraint use and minimum-drinking-age laws
(Traffic Safety Facts Crash[middot]Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812
683). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Available at: <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/8126834">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/8126834</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure to use proper occupant restraints is a significant factor
in a large

[[Page 39240]]

number of child occupant fatalities resulting from motor vehicle
crashes. In addition, fatalities among children properly restrained in
child restraints are often attributed to the severity of the crash.
Sherwood \42\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ 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 (2015-2019) and the National Automotive Sampling
System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) 2001-2015) to better
understand fatalities to children restrained in child restraints when
involved in side crashes.
First, NHTSA categorized the crash cases involving children (0- to
12-years-old) 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-Years-Old in Rear Seating Positions of Light
Passenger Vehicles Categorized by Restraint Type and Age
[FARS 2015-2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Restraint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total
Under 1 1-3 4-7 8-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None............................ 7.2 24.6 50.6 67.0 149.4
Adult Belt...................... 0.8 8.2 36.8 77.0 122.8
CRS............................. 40.6 96.6 69.2 6.4 212.8
Unknown......................... 3.2 9.4 15.0 12.4 40.0
Other........................... 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 51.8 139.0 172.2 163.2 526.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annually on average between 2015 and 2019, there were 526 crash
fatalities among children 0- to 12-years-old seated in rear seating
positions of light vehicles. Among these fatalities, on average 213 (40
percent) were children restrained in CRSs (137 were 0- to 3-years-old
and 76 were 4- to 12-years-old). Nearly 64 percent of the CRS
restrained child fatalities were children 0- to 3-years-old.
As shown in the last column of Table 6, among the 213 fatalities of
children 0- to 12-years-old restrained in rear seats of light passenger
vehicles and in CRSs, approximately 31 percent occurred in frontal
crashes, 25 percent in side crashes, 22 percent in rollovers, and 19
percent in rear crashes. Approximately 55 percent of side impact
fatalities (28.8/52.2) were in near-side impacts. (``Far-side''
position means the outboard seating position on the opposite side of
the point of impact or the center seating position.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The 2005-2009 FARS analysis presented in the NPRM, showed
31 percent fatalities of children 0- to 12-years-old restrained in
rear seats of light passenger vehicles and in CRSs were in side
impact. The 2015-2019 FARS analysis shows only 24.5 percent of
fatalities in side impacts, however, the difference in the figures
are attributed to the changing available variables in FARS not a
decrease in side impact fatalities. The 2005-2009 FARS analysis was
done using ``IMPACT2 (most damaged area)'' while the 2015-2019 was
done using ``IMPACT1 (area of initial contact), as IMPACT2 was
retired.

Table 6--Average Annual Crash Fatalities Among Children 0- to 12-Years-Old in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles and Restrained in CRSs
by Crash Mode and Age
[FARS 2015-2019] \43\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Crash mode ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent total
<1 1-3 4-7 8-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover................................................ 8.0 21.8 15.4 1.6 46.8 22.0
Front................................................... 13.6 30.8 21.4 0.8 66.6 31.3
Side.................................................... 10.2 23.4 16.2 2.4 52.2 24.5
Near-side............................................... 6.2 11.6 9.2 1.8 28.8 13.5
Far-side................................................ 3.8 11.4 6.8 0.6 22.6 10.6
Unknown-side............................................ 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.4
Rear.................................................... 7.8 17.0 14.0 1.6 40.4 19.0
Other................................................... 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.4 1.6
Unknown................................................. 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.0 3.4 1.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 40.6 96.6 69.2 6.4 212.8 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39241]]

Of the side impact crash fatalities among CRS restrained children
0- to 12-years-old in rear seating positions, nearly 62 percent of near
side fatalities ((6.2 + 11.6)/28.8) 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.\44\
The analysis was conducted for three different child age groups (<1-
year-old, 1- to 3-years-old, and 4- to 7-years-old) and for different
crash modes (rollover, front, side, and rear). The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Hanna, R., ``Children Injured in Motor Vehicle Traffic
Crashes,'' DOT HS 811 325, NHTSA, May 2010, <a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811325.pdf">http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811325.pdf</a>, last accessed on July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency analyzed NASS-CDS for the years 2001-2015 to obtain
annual estimates of moderate or higher severity injuries (MAIS 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-Years-Old Children With MAIS 2+ Injuries in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles Involved in
Motor Vehicle Crashes by Restraint Type
[NASS-CDS 2001-2015]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Restraint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent of
Under 1 1-3 4-7 8-12 total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.................................................... 15 94 530 575 1,214 20.0
Adult Belt.............................................. 0 91 489 860 1,440 23.8
CRS..................................................... 181 731 504 36 1,452 24.0
Unknown if Used......................................... 1 28 323 146 498 8.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 378 1,675 2,350 1,653 6,056 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between 2001 and 2015 on average annually there were an estimated
6,056 twelve and younger children with MAIS 2 + injuries seated in the
rear seats of light passenger vehicles with 2,053 of these injured
occupants being younger than 4- years-old. Approximately 1,452 CRS
restrained children 12-years-old and younger sustained MAIS 2+injuries,
among which 912 (63 percent) were children younger than 4-years-old and
504 (35 percent) were 4- to 7-year-old children.
The NASS-CDS 2001-2015 data files were further analyzed to
determine crash characteristics. Table 8 presents the average annual
estimates of 0- to 12-year-old children with MAIS 2+ injuries in rear
seating positions of light passenger vehicles. Approximately 38 percent
of the children were injured in frontal crashes, 32 percent in side
crashes, 24 percent in rollover crashes and 5 percent in rear crashes.

Table 8--Average Annual Estimates of 0- to 12-Years-Old Children With MAIS 2+ Injuries in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger Vehicles Involved in
Motor Vehicle Crashes by Crash Mode
[NASS-CDS 2001-2015]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Crash mode ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent of
<1 1-3 4-7 8-12 total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover................................................ 13 150 396 543 1,102 23.9
Front................................................... 62 329 710 658 1,759 38.2
Side.................................................... 46 373 691 387 1,497 32.5
Near-Side........................................... 31 276 330 260 897 19.5
Far-Side............................................ 11 58 360 126 555 12.1
Unknown-Side........................................ 4 39 1 1 45 1.0
Rear.................................................... 78 76 49 29 232 5.0
Other................................................... 0 14 0 0 14 0.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 199 942 1,846 1,617 4,604 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 39242]]

Table 9--Average Annual Estimates of 0- to 12-Years-Old CRS Restrained Children With MAIS 2+ Injuries in Rear Seating Positions of Light Passenger
Vehicles Involved in Motor Vehicle Crashes by Crash Mode
[NASS-CDS 2001-2015]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)
Crash mode ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Percent of
Under 1 1-3 4-7 8-12 total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rollover................................................ 12 60 102 0 174 12.0
Front................................................... 55 293 233 18 599 41.2
Side.................................................... 42 323 139 18 522 35.9
Near-side........................................... 31 272 44 18 336 25.1
Far-side............................................ 11 51 95 0 157 10.8
Rear.................................................... 74 54 31 0 159 10.29
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 183 730 505 36 1,454 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For MAIS 2+ injured 12-years-old and younger child occupants in
passenger vehicles restrained in CRSs in rear seating positions, 41
percent of the injuries were in frontal crashes, 36 percent in side
crashes, 12 percent in rollovers, and 10 percent in rear crashes. About
64 percent (336/522) 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, NHTSA
does 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.

III. Statutory Mandate

Subtitle E of the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act'' (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141 (July 6, 2012),\45\ included Section
31501(a), which stated that, not later than two years after the date of
enactment of the Act, the Secretary (NHTSA by delegation) shall issue a
final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 to
improve the protection of children seated in child restraint systems
during side impact crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Subtitle E is entitled ``Child Safety Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule accords with MAP-21 and implements Congress's
intent to implement a side impact standard for child restraints. In
2004, NHTSA informed Congress \46\ that, while enhanced side impact
protection for children in child restraints was a priority for NHTSA,
NHTSA had initiated a side impact rulemaking in response to the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
(TREAD) Act but found the extent of the uncertainties prevented
adoption of a side impact performance test for CRSs.\47\ NHTSA informed
Congress when the agency withdrew the rulemaking that NHTSA would
continue its efforts to obtain detailed side crash data identifying
specific injury mechanisms involving children and would work toward
developing countermeasures using test dummies, including the European
Q3 dummy then available, for improved side impact protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ NHTSA Report to Congress, ``Child Restraint Systems,
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation
Act,'' February 2004. <a href="http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/NHTSAReports/TREAD.pdf">www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/NHTSAReports/TREAD.pdf</a>.
\47\ Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 21836, May 1,
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In March 2011, NHTSA's Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking
and Research Priority Plan 2011-2013, announced the agency's intention
to issue an NPRM in 2012 on child restraint side impact protection.\48\
NHTSA stated in the plan that it was 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP-21 was enacted soon thereafter, with a short deadline for
issuance of a final rule. Given the context of NHTSA's work in this
area, NHTSA has interpreted Subtitle E as directing NHTSA to apply the
knowledge gained since its 2004 report to Congress to initiate and
complete the side impact regulation as the agency had planned. There
were no child test dummies other than the Q3s available when MAP-21 was
enacted that were proven sufficiently durable and reliable for use in
the FMVSS No. 213 side impact test.\49\ There was not enough time to
develop and validate a different test procedure, or new child side
impact test dummies, within the time constraints of Subtitle E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ There are still no child test dummies that are suitable for
use in a side impact FMVSS other than the Q3s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP-21 required a final rule ``amending FMVSS No. 213,'' which
NHTSA has interpreted to mean that the rulemaking must be conducted in
accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) (Safety Act). NHTSA has developed a standard 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 Safety Act. Standard No. 213a
meets the need for safety, is stated in objective terms, and is
reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the CRSs for which it is
prescribed. 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 18.1 kg (40 lb).
For one, there is no side impact dummy representative of children
weighing more than 40 lb that is proven to provide the test
measurements required of a dummy used in the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. 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 18.1 kg
(40 lb). Without a valid test dummy, CRSs for heavier children may
``pass'' a side impact test with the Q3s, but the Q3s would not
meaningfully assess the performance of the CRS in protecting the
heavier child. Raising the limit above 40 lb could engender a false
sense of security that a restraint adequately protects the heavier
children when, in fact, without a heavier test dummy, the standard
would not be adequately assessing the restraint's protection of these
children. NHTSA believes Congress was aware of this limitation on the
availability of test dummies when it enacted MAP-21, and did not want

[[Page 39243]]

NHTSA to apply the new standard to a subset of CRSs that could not be
sufficiently assessed for their performance in protecting a child in a
side impact. Moreover, it does not seem sensible to require
manufacturers to ensure their CRSs comply with the standard tested with
the Q3s if the child restraints are not intended for, and will not be
used with, children of the size represented by the Q3s. Thus, NHTSA
does not consider it reasonable or appropriate \50\ to apply this final
rule to child restraints that are not recommended for children weighing
between 13.6 kg (30 lb) and 18.1 kg (40 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, NHTSA drafted this final rule recognizing that
children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in a child restraint
will be seated high enough to benefit from a passenger vehicle's side
curtain air bags.\51\ In the November 2, 2020 NPRM proposing to amend
FMVSS No. 213, supra, NHTSA proposed requiring booster seats to be
labeled only for children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). If,
because of that label, children are kept in safety seats until they are
at least 18.1 kg (40 lb), they will be seated until that time in a CRS
that will be certified to the side impact protection requirements of
FMVSS No. 213a. Also, when they transition to a booster seat (or a
child restraint with an internal harness intended for children weighing
more than 18.1 kg (40 lb)), such booster seat or child restraint will
lift them high enough to be protected by the vehicle's side curtain air
bags. That label will help ensure that children will remain in car
seats longer and will only use booster seats when they are tall enough
to take advantage of a vehicle's side protection countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) restrained in
CRSs would have a seated height similar to the height of a 5th
percentile adult female. The vehicle's side curtain air bags are
designed to protect occupants, including those of the size of a 5th
percentile female, in side impacts and rollovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Guiding Principles

In addition to the considerations already discussed, the following
principles also guided NHTSA's decisions in developing this final rule.
1. There is a safety need for this rulemaking notwithstanding the
estimated effectiveness of child restraints in side impacts.\52\ Child
restraint safety in side impacts can be increased. NHTSA has observed
that increasing numbers of CRSs appear to have more side structure
coverage (CRS side ``wings'') and side padding than before.\53\ 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,
NHTSA considers the side wing coverage and increased padding to be
overall positive developments. However, because FMVSS No. 213 did not
have a side impact test, a quantifiable assessment of the protective
qualities of the features was heretofore not possible. Further, testing
NHTSA conducted in developing this final rule indicate that not all
side wings and padding protect the same, and in some cases, ``more'' of
a countermeasure (padding, structure) was not necessarily ``better.''
This final rule establishes performance requirements that ensure that
the wings, padding, padding-like features, or other countermeasures
employed to provide protection in side impacts will be engineered to
attain at least a minimum threshold of performance that will reduce
unreasonable risk of injury or fatality in side impacts. For CRS
designs that have not yet incorporated side impact protection features,
this final rule ensures they will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ NHTSA estimates that CRSs are already 42 percent effective
in preventing death in side crashes of 0- to 3-year-old children.
Supra.
\53\ SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131012130527/http://www.carseat.org/Pictorial/InfantPict,1-11.pdf">https://web.archive.org/web/20131012130527/http://www.carseat.org/Pictorial/InfantPict,1-11.pdf</a>
and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120915194832/http://www.carseat.org/Pictorial/3-Five-%20Point-np.pdf">https://web.archive.org/web/20120915194832/http://www.carseat.org/Pictorial/3-Five-%20Point-np.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. In making regulatory decisions on possible enhancements to CRS
performance, NHTSA bears in mind the consumer acceptance of cost
increases to a highly effective item of safety equipment.\54\ Any
enhancement that would significantly raise the price of the restraints
could potentially have an adverse effect on the sales and use of this
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, or if older child restraints that are
not designed to meet current requirements were reused. Thus, to
maximize the total safety benefits of its efforts on FMVSS No. 213,
NHTSA 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 misuse and
nonuse of child restraints could increase, and the benefits engineered
into the CRS not realized in the real world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Child restraint systems 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). ``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. Child
restraint effectiveness for children between the ages 1- to 4-years-
old is 54 percent in passenger cars and 59 percent in light trucks.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. NHTSA is guided by the principles for regulatory decision-making
set forth in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' and E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review.'' NHTSA's assessment of the net effect on safety of this
rulemaking was limited in some respects, however. 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 velocity impact may
not be reasonable if ultimately the crash replicated were basically un-
survivable, or if the standard's requirements were impracticable or
resulted in CRSs that could not be used as a practical matter or used
correctly. Another limiting factor was the absence of information
comparing the real-world performance of ``good'' performing CRSs versus
``poor'' performing CRSs. Without these data, NHTSA had to use test
data and injury curves to determine the effectiveness of possible
countermeasures (e.g., side wings with strategically-placed energy-
absorbing padding).

V. Overview of the NPRM and Comments Received

a. Overview of the NPRM

NHTSA published the NPRM for this final rule on January 28, 2014
(79 FR 4570, Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0012). The NPRM proposed to amend
FMVSS No. 213 to require CRSs designed to seat children in a weight
range that includes weights up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) to meet side impact
performance requirements in new FMVSS No. 213a, in addition to the
requirements for frontal protection established in FMVSS No. 213.\55\
We

[[Page 39244]]

reopened the comment period on June 4, 2014, in response to a petition
from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA).\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ NHTSA considered incorporating the side impact requirements
into FMVSS No. 213, rather than in FMVSS No. 213a, but decided
against doing so. MAP-21 directed NHTSA to undertake side and
frontal impact test rulemakings in the same timeframe, with each
involving different compliance schedules and different test dummies.
NHTSA decided that combining the side and frontal test rulemakings
into one standard (with each encompassing entirely new sled test
systems and dynamic test requirements), could have made the
revisions difficult to understand, particularly with the new
requirements for the frontal and side tests becoming effective on
different dates. The agency decided to establish the side impact
requirements separately in FMVSS No. 213a for clarity and plain
language purposes.
\56\ The comment period was reopened until October 2, 2014 (79
FR 32211). JPMA petitioned to provide more time for child restraint
manufacturers to obtain the Q3s dummy from the dummy manufacturer,
arrange with test labs to evaluate their CRSs with it, conduct
testing, and comment on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA proposed performance requirements that child restraints must
meet when tested dynamically in a sled test replicating a side crash.
The NPRM proposed that child restraints would be tested while attached
to a standardized seat assembly. The sled test \57\ procedure was
designed to replicate a two-vehicle side crash depicted in the moving
deformable barrier (MDB) test of FMVSS No. 214 (striking vehicle
traveling at 48.3 km/h (30 mph)) impacting the struck vehicle traveling
at 24.1 km/h (15 mph). The proposed sled test simulated a near-side
side impact of a small passenger car. FMVSS No. 213a's side impact test
represents a crash with a change of velocity of approximately 19 mph.
NHTSA's analysis of field data (NASS-CDS 1995-2009) found that 92
percent of near-side crashes for restrained children (0- to 12-years-
old) involved a change in velocity of 19 mph or lower.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ The sled test was based on an acceleration sled system. 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. The proposed acceleration sled was originally developed
by the Takata Corporation. (Literature on development of the FMVSS
No. 213a sled test sometimes refers to the sled as the ``Takata''
system.)
\58\ 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-years-old
in all restraint environments including seat belts and CRS. Details
of the analysis are provided in the technical report in the docket
for the NPRM (Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA examined data from FMVSS No. 214 MDB compliance tests to
identify kinematic characteristics of the vehicle test to replicate in
the sled test environment, and proposed characteristics relating to the
acceleration profile of the sliding seat (representing the struck
vehicle acceleration), the door velocity at time of contact with the
sliding seat (to represent the struck vehicle door velocity), and the
impact angle of the door with the sliding seat (to replicate the
longitudinal component of the direction of force). Comments were
requested \59\ on whether a relative door velocity profile (the
velocity of the door relative to the sliding seat) should be specified
to improve the reproducibility of the test procedure using different
types of sled systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 79 FR at 4585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA proposed to apply FMVSS No. 213a to CRSs manufactured and
offered for sale for children up to 18.1 kg (40 lb). The NPRM proposed
that child restraint systems with integral internal harnesses (car
seats or safety seats) would be attached to the side impact seat
assembly (SISA) using the child restraint anchorage system on the SISA
(including the top tether, if one were provided).\60\ Comments were
requested on whether car seats should also be tested when attached by a
Type 2 belt and top tether. The NPRM proposed that child restraints
that do not have connectors designed to attach to a child restraint
anchorage system would be tested using a Type 2 belt (e.g., booster
seats recommended for children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb)
\61\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ The child restraint anchorage system is commonly referred
to as the LATCH system (``Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children'').
\61\ This proposal predated a November 2, 2020 NPRM in which
NHTSA proposed prohibiting booster seats from being recommended for
children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb). If the November 2020
proposal is adopted, the FMVSS No. 213a provision would be moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA proposed that child restraint systems recommended for
children with weights in the 10 kg to 18.1 kg (22 lb to 40 lb) range
would be tested on the SISA with the Q3s test dummy.\62\ Child
restraints would have to meet injury criteria (expressed in terms of
HIC15 \63\ and chest deflection) when tested with the Q3s dummy. 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. CRSs recommended for children with
weights that include weights up to 10 kg (22 lb) would be tested with
the 12-month-old CRABI dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart R). Because the
CRABI dummy is designed for frontal and not side impacts, the NPRM
proposed that the CRABI would be used only to measure the containment
capability of the child restraint (the ability of the restraint to
prevent the dummy's head from contacting the intruding door of the
SISA). The dummy's head and chest instrumentation would not be
leveraged since the dummy was not designed to assess crash forces in
side impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ The proposed weight ranges described in this paragraph have
been adjusted in this final rule. NHTSA is adopting a 13.6 kg (30
lb) cut off instead of a 10-kg (22-lb) cut off.
\63\ A measurement of the head injury criterion that is based on
the integration of resultant head acceleration over a 15-millisecond
duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPRM also proposed requiring child restraints to meet
structural integrity and other performance requirements in FMVSS No.
213. When a CRS is dynamically tested with the appropriate ATD, there
should not be any complete separation of any load-bearing structural
element \64\ 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, projectiles coming from a
seat involved in a side crash or by contact with the interior of the
passenger compartment or with components of the CRS. NHTSA notes that
while some CRS structures have not been considered load-bearing
structural elements in frontal testing (FMVSS No. 213) by NHTSA, these
same CRS structures may be considered load-bearing structural elements
in side impact testing (FMVSS No. 213a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ NHTSA interprets load bearing structure to mean a structure
that: (1) transfers energy from the SISA and/or door to the CRS
(e.g., installation components or CRS areas that contact the
intruding door), or (2) transfers energy from the CRS to the
occupant or vice versa (e.g., belts and components to restrain the
child, CRS surfaces or parts transferring energy to the occupant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injury from contacting protrusions, such as the pointed ends of
screws mounted in padding, would be prevented in a similar manner as
that specified for the frontal crash test in FMVSS No. 213. The height
of such protrusions would be limited to not more than 0.375 inches
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
inches), even under padding. Padding will compress in an impact and the
load imposed on the child would be concentrated and potentially
injurious.
The NPRM discussed NHTSA's testing of CRS models representative of
seats available then in the market. NHTSA had tested twelve forward-
facing and five rear-facing child restraints with the Q3s dummy. The
Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 570 in seven of the twelve forward-
facing CRSs tested. The Q3s measured chest deflection greater than 23
mm in three of the twelve forward-facing CRSs tested. The Q3s measured
both HIC15 greater than 570 and chest deflection greater than 23 mm in
three of the tests of the forward-facing CRSs. For the five

[[Page 39245]]

rear-facing CRSs tested with the Q3s, the results of the fleet tests
showed that the Q3s measured HIC15 greater than 570 in three of the
five rear-facing CRSs tested, and chest deflection greater than 23 mm
in two of the five tests. The Q3s measured both HIC15 greater than 570
and chest deflection greater than 23 mm in one of the five rear-facing
CRSs tested. NHTSA tested 12 rear-facing CRSs with the CRABI to
estimate the performance of the fleet. Using head-to-door contact as
the performance criterion in the fleet tests, the results showed that
the CRABI had head contact only with one child restraint (one out of
the twelve models tested).

b. Summary of the Comments

NHTSA received 29 comments on the proposal.\65\ Commenters included
child restraint manufacturers (Dorel Juvenile Group, Graco Children's
Products, Britax Child Safety, Inc UppaBaby, Safeguard/IMMI), the
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA); consumer advocates
(Safe Ride News, Safe Kids Worldwide, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, Consumers Union \66\); the National Transportation Safety
Board; research bodies and testing organizations (Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS), University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (UMTRI), MGA Research Corporation, ARCCA, Inc., the
Transport Research Laboratory; a supplier of honeycomb (Plascore), and
members of the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ The NPRM proposing to add the Q3s dummy specifications to
49 CFR part 572 received comments separately from the NPRM preceding
this final rule. Those comments are fully addressed in the November
3, 2020 final rule (85 FR 69898). They are discussed here to the
extent relevant to this final rule.
\66\ Consumer Union is the Policy and Action Division of
Consumer Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of the Comments

As summarized below, all but four commenters \67\ strongly
supported the proposed inclusion of a side impact test in FMVSS No.
213. Several commenters expressed views on the types of child
restraints they believed should be subject to FMVSS No. 213a. Many
commenters discussed technical aspects of the proposed test procedure,
such as the repeatability and reproducibility of the dynamic test, the
availability of and characteristics of the seat foam specified for the
SISA, how the tested CRS should be positioned on and attached to the
SISA, and how the Q3s should be positioned in the child restraint,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ These were UMTRI and three individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Child restraint manufacturers: All child restraint manufacturers
commenting on the NPRM supported the inclusion of a dynamic side impact
test procedure in FMVSS No. 213, as did JPMA, their industry group.
Some had questions about various issues and many responded to the
questions NHTSA had asked in the preamble to the NPRM. Dorel supported
adopting a test procedure that included an intruding door but believed
that the Q3s dummy exhibited ``artificial forward head movement before
the crash impact'' that places the dummy out of position in relation to
the side wing. Dorel expressed concerns about the repeatability and
reproducibility (R&R) of results from NHTSA's test program, as did
Graco, the latter providing feedback on results of test trials it
conducted comparing the R&R of the proposed side impact test using data
from several different test labs. Graco evaluated potential causes of
variation and recommended ways to improve the sled design to reduce
variation between the labs.
Some CRS manufacturers suggested revisions to technical aspects of
the proposal. Britax believed the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe Regulation No. 44 \68\ (ECE R.44) foam proposed for use on
the SISA is not readily available and specifying it in FMVSS No. 213a
may create considerable hardship from cost and availability
perspectives. Britax supported the agency's views in the NPRM about
testing and labeling of belt-positioning booster seats. UPPAbaby
recommended against using the Q3s dummy to test rear-facing infant
seats, because, it stated, ``the head of the Q3s exceeds the limit to
which we recommend a child be positioned in our seat.'' UPPAbaby
supported using a lap/shoulder belt to attach car seats to the SISA, in
addition to a child restraint anchorage system. IMMI supported
excluding harnesses from the proposed side impact requirements and
suggested ways to expand the standard's definition of a ``harness.''
JPMA reiterated Dorel's comment about ``artificial forward head
movement'' of the Q3s before impact, reported instances in which the
text in the preamble was inconsistent with proposed regulatory text,
emphasized the importance of reproducibility of test results to the
objectivity of a safety standard, and provided other information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ ECE R44--Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power
Driven Vehicles (``Child Restraint Systems'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer advocates: Safe Ride News (SRN), Safe Kids Worldwide,
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates), and Consumers Union
(CU) supported the proposed rule, while suggesting that NHTSA adopt
further requirements. Several commenters weighed in with responses to
the technical questions in the NPRM. Many concurred that the rule
should only apply to CRSs recommended for children weighing up to 18.1
kg (40 lb) but encouraged NHTSA to develop an ATD (anthropomorphic test
device) (test dummy) representative of older children. SRN, Safe Kids
and CU suggested lead times less than 3 years. Advocates suggested
NHTSA require various warnings on child restraints, such as a warning
on CRSs recommended for children weighing more than 40 lb that ``this
CRS has not been tested in side impacts.'' CU suggested additional
performance criteria for structural integrity and supported testing
CRSs when attached with Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belts. CU believed
that the Q3s is too large to test rear-facing infant seats, and that
NHTSA should consider a planar limit to reduce the potential for the
dummy's head to roll out of the CRS shell in some tests.
Research and testing organizations: The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) agreed with NHTSA's reasons for not applying
FMVSS No. 213a to CRSs for children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb).
IIHS provided data from its belt fit program showing that children
weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in booster seats are likely
tall enough to benefit from the vehicle side curtain air bag. IIHS and
the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)
had concerns about possible dis-benefits from rear-facing restraints
possibly becoming wider in response to meeting FMVSS No. 213a. They
believed wider restraints could potentially indirectly increase injury
risk for restrained children, by, for example, causing older siblings
to graduate prematurely to a booster seat because wider car seats are
harder to fit side-by-side. UMTRI asked whether costs to meet the
proposed standard would be better spent on efforts to restrain
children. The commenter stated that half of pediatric fatalities from
motor vehicle crashes are to unrestrained or improperly restrained
occupants, so rather than modestly improving the side impact protection
for children, efforts should address improving the number of children
using appropriate restraints, enhancing child restraint ease-of-use,
and increasing educational efforts, such as on top tether use. ARCCA
suggested that NHTSA use the Hybrid III 6-year-old and 10-year-old

[[Page 39246]]

frontal crash dummies to assess head containment and structural
integrity.
NTSB: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) supported the
NPRM, believing that the proposed tests encompass the majority of CRSs
because the upper use limit for most small restraint systems extends to
at least 40 pounds and the lower use limit is at or below 40 pounds.
Nonetheless, NTSB urged NHTSA to develop suitable large-sized dummies.
NTSB expressed concern about the kinematic effects of far-side impact
crashes on larger children. NTSB also supported testing CRSs with a
seat belt attachment, in addition to the child restraint anchorage
system attachment. The commenter encouraged NHTSA to consider ease-of-
use improvements for top tethers, and use of a pure lateral
acceleration pulse in the side impact test.
Individuals: Approximately 7 individuals commented on the NPRM.
Most of the individuals supported the proposal, with three opposing.
One of the opposing commenters argued that the injury rates for the
under 1-year-old children are nearly 4 times lower than that for the 1-
to 3-year-old children, so efforts would be better spent increasing the
number of 1- to 3-year-old children who ride rear-facing than on
adopting a side impact standard. The others believed that the estimated
benefits of the proposal are low and do not support the additional
costs to industry or to the consumer.

VI. Response to the Comments (Wide-Reaching Issues)

NHTSA has carefully considered the comments in developing this
final rule. This section discusses the agency's decisions on matters of
general importance. Following this section are discussions relating to
specific topics, such as various technical aspects of the side impact
test procedure, the test dummies, the standard's performance criteria,
and other aspects of FMVSS No. 213a.

a. Are efforts better spent elsewhere on child seat safety?

Almost all of the commenters supported the inclusion of a side
impact test in FMVSS No. 213, but a few expressed concerns about the
rulemaking. Dr. Alisa Baer suggested NHTSA's efforts, and those of the
industry and/or the child passenger safety community, could be better
spent on correcting misuse or nonuse of child restraints.\69\ Dr. Baer
argued that Table 9 of the NPRM showed ``the injury rates for the under
1-year-olds (presumably the majority of whom are rear-facing) are
nearly 4 times lower than for the 1-3 year-olds (presumably the
majority of whom are forward-facing).'' She stated that the benefits
seem low and may not outweigh the costs of meeting the standard--costs,
she said, that include not only material costs (such as foam) but also
research and development and crash testing costs. The commenter said
the time and money spent on ensuring CRSs comply with the standard
could be better spent elsewhere, specifically, ``at decreasing the non-
use rate, especially amongst minority and low-income populations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ Dr. Baer stated, ``[C]urrent efforts to redesign seats to
optimize protection in side impacts are misguided. I believe the
primary focus should be on increasing the number of 1-3-year-olds
who ride rear-facing as the data suggest that keeping our
preschoolers rear-facing could have a much greater impact on
reducing fatalities & injuries in restrained children than the
proposed side impact standards will.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UMTRI and IIHS expressed concern with ``possible unintended
consequences of implementing this rulemaking.'' UMTRI suggested that
only forward-facing harnessed restraints be subject to the side impact
standard, ``since children in rear-facing child restraints are already
five times safer than those in [forward-facing] restraints in side
impacts,'' citing a 2007 study by Henary et al. to support its
view.\70\ IIHS echoed this view, also citing Henary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Henary, B., Sherwood, C.P., Crandall, J.R., Kent, R.W.,
Vaca, F.E., Arbogast, K.B., Bull, M.J. (2007) ``Car safety seats for
children: rear facing for best protection.'' Injury Prevention
13:398-402. (Note: as discussed below, this article was retracted in
2016.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenters above also expressed concern that adding larger,
padded side structures to meet the side impact standard may increase
the overall width of child restraints and result in children
prematurely moved from rear-facing restraints to forward-facing
restraints, from harnessed car seats to boosters, and from center
seating positions to outboard positions.
Agency Response
Increasing overall CRS use, tether use, and use of rear-facing
restraints by children above age 1 are very important goals, as each of
those measures can increase the number of child lives saved and
injuries avoided in crashes. NHTSA is actively involved in increasing
the use of CRSs and the correct use of restraint systems. These efforts
include developing and distributing training videos, producing public
safety announcements and various campaigns directed to caregivers of
children (in English and Spanish), leveraging all communication
resources (such as social media and the NHTSA website) to provide
information to parents and other caregivers, and expanding and
supporting the child passenger safety technician (CPST) curriculum used
to train and certify CRS fitting station technicians. In addition,
NHTSA's November 2, 2020 NPRM \71\ takes steps forward with proposed
changes to labeling requirements that are anticipated to result in more
children remaining rear-facing longer, and remaining in child safety
seats longer before transitioning to a booster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ 85 FR 69388, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be clear, however, this final rule focuses on improving the
protection provided by child restraints in side impacts and offers
expanded protection of children in a critically important crash mode--a
protection supplemental to the frontal crash protection the restraints
currently provide. Front and side crashes account for most child
occupant fatalities. MAP-21 requires NHTSA to issue a final rule to
amend FMVSS No. 213 to improve the protection of children seated in
child restraints in side impacts, but enhanced side impact protection
for children has been a priority for NHTSA before MAP-21.\72\ FMVSS No.
213a establishes a level of protection against unreasonable safety
risks in side impacts that every safety seat sold in this country will
have to provide and improves the protection afforded by the restraints
above that currently required by FMVSS No. 213. The efforts to improve
CRS use are complementary to and not inconsistent with improvements to
side crash safety, and will continue. Improved performance in side
crashes will not be achieved by improving CRS use alone, however.
Establishing FMVSS No. 213a improves the performance of child
restraints for the benefit of all children using the restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ See NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and
Research Priority Plan 2011-2013, March 2011, discussed in the
January 28, 2014 NPRM, supra, for this final rule (79 FR at 4572,
col. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA disagrees with the commenters that FMVSS No. 213a should not
apply to rear-facing child restraints. Dr. Baer may have misunderstood
Table 9 in the NPRM. Table 9 in the NPRM does not present injury rate
and instead presents average annual estimates of Abbreviated Injury
Scale (AIS) 2+ injuries.\73\ Since the population of children riding in
light vehicles is unknown, it is not possible to estimate injury rates.
The lower annual number of injuries to children

[[Page 39247]]

under 1 year of age could be related to fewer children of this age
group involved in crashes in comparison to 1- to 3-year-old children.
Applying FMVSS No. 213a to both front-facing and rear-facing child
restraints ensures all rear-facing child restraints will provide a
level of performance determined necessary to reduce an unreasonable
risk of death or injury in side impacts to restrained occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UMTRI and IIHS argue that rear-facing CRSs are five times safer
than forward-facing CRSs, based on a 2007 study by Henary et al.\74\
NHTSA notes that the Henary study was called into question in 2016, and
after further analysis, the article was retracted by the journal Injury
Prevention, because the survey weights in the original analysis were
determined to be improperly handled. In 2017, a revised analysis of the
1988-2003 data, along with an extended analysis of the data through
2015, was published by a subset of the original authorship group.\75\
Their findings reveal that, although children 0 to 23 months still had
lower rates of injury while rear-facing compared with forward-facing,
the sample size was too small to achieve statistical significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ Supra.
\75\ McMurry, T.L., Arbogast, K.B., Sherwood, C.P., Vaca, F.,
Bull, M., Crandall, J.R., Kent, R.W. ``Rear facing versus forward-
facing child restraints: an updated assessment,'' 2017, Injury
Prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of the withdrawn Henary study, NHTSA does not find the
commenters' arguments persuasive. MAP-21 limits our discretion
regarding rear-facing child restraints, but even in the absence of the
statutory mandate, NHTSA finds a crucial need to apply FMVSS No. 213a
to rear-facing CRSs. Current guidance from the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) and from NHTSA instruct parents that children should
ride rear-facing longer, and increasing numbers of child restraints are
designed to position children rear-facing longer. AAP recommends: ``All
infants and toddlers should ride in a rear-facing seat until they reach
the highest weight or height allowed by their car safety seat
manufacturer. Most convertible seats have limits that will allow
children to ride rear facing for 2 years or more.'' \76\ NHTSA
recommends for children 1- to 3-years-old: ``Keep your child rear-
facing as long as possible. It's the best way to keep him or her safe.
Your child should remain in a rear-facing car seat until he or she
reaches the top height or weight limit allowed by your car seat's
manufacturer.'' \77\ Because of these recommendations and the advances
in child seat designs, children are positioned rear-facing longer.\78\
As most child occupant fatalities occur in front and side crashes,
NHTSA believes it is critical that child restraints meet not only the
Federal standard for frontal protection (FMVSS No. 213), but also a
Federal standard for side impact protection (FMVSS No. 213a). Issuing
FMVSS No. 213a guarantees the safety seats are tested and certified to
a robust side impact standard when used rear-facing, and that children
are provided at least a minimum level of protection against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in side crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ <a href="https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/on-the-go/Pages/Car-Safety-Seats-Information-for-Families.aspx">https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/on-the-go/Pages/Car-Safety-Seats-Information-for-Families.aspx</a>.
\77\ <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats">https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats</a>.
\78\ Rear-facing car seat use among children 1- to 3-years-old
increased significantly from 9.4 percent in 2015 to 13.7 percent in
2017. Li, H.R., & Pickrell, T. (2018, September). The 2017 National
Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT HS 812 617).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Will child restraints become excessively large and heavy?

Dr. Baer, UMTRI and IIHS raised concerns that child restraints
would get wider because of meeting FMVSS No. 213a. Dr. Baer commented
that the side impact rule is ``virtually ensuring that car seats are
only going to get wider and bulkier at the head area.'' The commenter
believed that the increased bulk would result in parents not able to
fit car seats side-by-side in rear seats, and so the oldest child will
be ``put into a backless booster, as this is typically the narrowest,
and least expensive, restraint available.'' UMTRI expressed concern
that adding larger, padded side structures ``has potential to increase
the overall width of child restraints,'' which could result in children
moved from center seating positions to outboard positions. IIHS echoed
this concern, and stated ``even moderate increases in size may result
in fewer seats that fit in the rear seats of smaller vehicles.''
Conversely, ARCCA \79\ responded to the comments to the NPRM about
the potential increase in the size and weight of child restraints.
ARCCA shared information gained from car seats tested pursuant to a
side impact test found in European New Car Assessment Program (Euro-
NCAP) consumer education program. ARCCA stated that Euro-NCAP test
results are provided to the public to aid purchasers in the selection
of CRSs, and that as a result of these test programs, most suppliers of
European child seat manufacturers strive to score well in those tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ Comment dated July 1, 2014. There were two comments from
ARCCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCCA believed that FMVSS No. 213a will have minimal effect on CRS
cost, weight, and width. The commenter supported its view with an
example of an infant-only CRS sold in Europe and the U.S. The
restraint's European version differs from the U.S. version by way of
side wings with a wing depth of 4\1/2\ inches, compared to the U.S.
version that has a wing depth of only 2\1/2\ inches. ARCCA stated that
when tested with a 12-month-old CRABI infant dummy in accordance with
the proposed ISO side impact test protocol,\80\ the U.S. version failed
to contain the head. The head hit the simulated intruding door,
resulting in HIC values ranging from 2,577 to 4,783. In contrast, the
commenter stated, the European version, with its deeper side wings,
contained the head and prevented contact with the simulated intruding
door, resulting in a HIC value of 827 (a 68 to 83 percent reduction in
the HIC value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ ARCCA did not provide details of the ISO test protocol.
ARCCA may be referring to the test details provided in the report,
ISO TR 14646:2007, ``Road vehicles--Side impact testing of child
restraint systems--Review of background data and test methods, and
conclusions from the ISO work as of November 2005.''

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

[[Page 39248]]

ARCCA stated that the U.S. and European versions of this infant
seat were manufactured using the same plastic shell. The side wings of
the European version were deepened simply by extending the expanded
polystyrene (EPS) lining beyond the plastic shell. While the wings were
deepened in the European version, the width of the infant seat was the
same as the U.S. version. ARCCA stated that the weight increase due to
the deepening of side wings was negligible (approximately one-eighth of
a pound (\1/8\ lb)) and the increased cost for the extended EPS was
minimal, less than one dollar. ARCCA believed the proposed rulemaking
will significantly improve child occupant crash protection in side
impacts and rollovers, and have minimal effect on CSS cost, weight, and
width.
Agency Response
Data indicate that child restraints will not become excessively
large or heavy due to FMVSS No. 213a, and rear-facing CRSs should not
be excluded from the side impact protection requirements based on a
concern about larger and wider CRS designs. As IIHS points out, only
one rear-facing seat failed to contain the 12-month-old CRABI's head in
NHTSA's test program described in the NPRM, which indicates that many
rear-facing seats may not need to be redesigned in any way to meet
FMVSS No. 213a.
Commenters Dr. Baer, UMTRI and IIHS speculated about bulkier child
restraints and the consequences that the bulkiness could cause, but
provided no data or other information supporting their views. In
contrast, ARCCA provided information showing that the width and weight
of an infant carrier sold in Europe (designed to provide side impact
protection) were almost identical to the U.S. version of the model.
ARCCA's information indicates side impact protection can be provided by
car seats without having to increase width or weight.
After reviewing the comments, NHTSA followed up with further
evaluation of whether manufacturers must widen forward-facing
restraints to meet the side impact protection requirements. The agency
evaluated two pairs of CRS models.\81\ For each pair, one of the child
restraints was advertised as providing more side impact protection than
its related twin. NHTSA measured the width of each CRS at the locations
where a child's head, abdomen and hips would be when restrained in the
CRS. NHTSA found that, for each CRS advertised as having enhanced side
impact protection features over its twin, each was wider in the upper
area of the CRS near the head position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Louden, A., & Wietholter, K. (2022, March). FMVSS No. 213
side impact test evaluation and revision (Report No. DOT HS 812
791). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(hereinafter Louden & Wietholter (2022)). Available in the docket of
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA then conducted sled tests of the CRSs using the Q3s dummy
with the CRS in the forward-facing mode. For each CRS pair, the agency
observed that the HIC15 value measured by the Q3s dummy was greater for
the wider CRS (see Table 10). The HIC15 measurements of the Q3s were
greater for both the Britax Advocate and Graco Nautilus Safety
Surround, which are wider than their corresponding models, the Britax
Boulevard and Graco Nautilus 65, respectively. This testing
demonstrated that child restraints cannot simply be widened to meet the
FMVSS No. 213a side impact test; simply widening the restraint may, in
fact, degrade performance. Manufacturers will likely use different
engineering solutions (e.g., designing in energy-absorbing components)
to improve performance rather than just widen the restraint. A well-
engineered restraint could meet the requirements of this final rule
without becoming wider.
Concerns about rear-facing CRSs ``bulking-up'' to meet the side
impact protection requirements also appear unwarranted. As will be
discussed in a section below, test data from NHTSA's tests developing
this final rule indicate that not all side wings and padding protect
the same, and in some cases, ``more'' of a countermeasure (padding,
structure) was not necessarily ``better.'' Width, wings, padding,
padding-like features, and other countermeasures employed to provide
protection in side impacts must be engineered to attain the performance
specified by FMVSS No. 213a. Adding bulk and weight to a child
restraint is not necessary and can be counterproductive.

Table 10--Upper Width and HIC15 Values in Tests With the Q3s Dummy in Britax Boulevard and Britax Advocate CRS
Models in Forward-Facing Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertised side
Database test No. CRS HIC15 protection Upper width
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS Pair 1:
10105........................ Britax Boulevard... 522 2 Layers of Side Impact 460
Protection (energy-
absorbing shell and
foam-lined head rest).
10106........................ Britax Advocate.... 665 3 Layers of Side Impact 465
Protection (energy
absorbing shell, foam-
lined headrest and
external cushions).
CRS Pair 2:
10108........................ Graco Nautilus 65.. 609 EPS Energy Absorbing 455
Foam and Reinforced
Steel.
10109........................ Graco Nautilus 838 EPS Energy Absorbing 470
Safety Surround. Foam, Reinforced Steel
and Safety Surround
Technology (safety
surround means that the
head rest has a thicker
foam).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also believes there is a technical incentive in FMVSS No.
213a that encourages designs toward narrower CRSs. Under this final
rule, the impact velocity between the door and the CRS will be lower
for narrow CRSs compared to wider CRSs. Narrower CRSs are at a greater
distance from the edge of the sliding seat and so the door will impact
the CRS at a later time after first impacting the sliding seat. This
later impact will result in a lower relative velocity of the sliding
seat with respect to the door at the time of impact with the CRS.
NHTSA studied this aspect of the test procedure in following up on
the commenters' concern about the widths of CRSs. NHTSA analyzed the
relative velocity at impact time between the door and the CRS for a
wide CRS (Safety 1st Advanced Air+, 520 mm maximum width) and narrow
CRS (Chicco Next Fit, 460 mm maximum width). As shown in Figure 1
below, the wider CRS is impacted by the door at a relative velocity of
29.19 km/h while the narrow one is impacted at 26.59 km/h. Both HIC15
and chest deflection were lower in the test of the narrow CRS (Chicco

[[Page 39249]]

Next Fit) than the wide CRS (Safety 1st Advance SE Air+). These CRSs
are designed differently, so their countermeasures could have affected
the HIC15 and chest deflection values measured by the dummy in the
tests. Yet these results suggest that the FMVSS No. 213 side impact
test will not in and of itself lead to wider CRSs.
In sum, based on NHTSA's testing of various types of CRSs in the
side impact test protocol, NHTSA believes that CRSs do not have to be
wider or bulkier to meet the side impact performance requirements. In
fact, our evaluations showed that some narrower CRSs performed better
than wider CRSs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.004

c. More Bulk Is Not Necessarily Advantageous; the 2017 Test Program

In 2017, NHTSA tested child restraint systems on the side impact
seat assembly (SISA) as configured to the specifications of this final
rule. There were two parts to this program. The first part of the
testing was conducted to compare results of tests on the final SISA
configuration with test results from 2012 using the proposed SISA.
Three forward-facing CRS models (Evenflo Triumph,\82\ Evenflo Titan and
Evenflo Tribute) and three rear-facing CRS models (Evenflo Tribute,
Safety 1st Alpha Omega and Graco My Ride 65) were tested using the Q3s
dummy on the final SISA to compare to the results from corresponding
sled tests conducted on the proposed SISA. Paired comparison analyses
(see Table 11) show that HIC15 and chest deflection results on the
proposed and final SISA were not significantly different (p>0.05).
These data indicate that changes to the SISA between the NPRM and final
rule did not affect test results from tests of the CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ The Evenflo Triumph was produced in 2009 which ensured this
model had not been modified to improve side impact in response to
the 2014 NPRM. The agency also tested a more recently produced model
which had very similar performance.

Table 11--Paired Comparison T-Test Results of Tests Conducted Using the Final SISA Configuration and the Proposed SISA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule SISA configuration NPRM SISA configuration
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy, configuration and restraint Chest Chest
type Test No. CRS HIC15 deflection Test No. CRS HIC15 deflection
[mm] [mm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q3s in Forward Facing (FF) 10274 Evenflo Triumph (2009) 498.8 11.4 7561 Evenflo Triumph 463.8 14.6
Convertible Installed with CRAS. Advantage DLX.
8252 Evenflo Triumph 445.8 16.1
Advantage DLX.
8254 Evenflo Triumph 468.7 13.5
Advantage DLX.
10276 Evenflo Titan......... 1029.3 28.3 7557 Evenflo Titan......... 846.5 20.6
10101 Evenflo Tribute....... 760.0 20.9 7547 Evenflo Tribute....... 788.0 20.2
T.Test................ 0.192 0.897 ......... ...................... ......... ..........
Q3s in Rear Facing (RF) Convertible 10282 Evenflo Tribute....... 611.5 23.4 7554 Evenflo Tribute....... 763.0 22.4
Installed with lower anchors only
(LA only).
10283 Safety 1st Alpha Omega 396.4 26.0 7553 Safety 1st Alpha Omega 407.0 25.6
10284 Graco My Ride 65...... 778.3 22.3 8260 Graco My Ride 65...... 751.0 25.0
8264 Graco My Ride 65...... 681.0 31.0
T.Test................ 0.869 0.341 ......... ...................... ......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of the testing was to assess the performance of
more recently produced child restraint systems to the requirements of
then-pending FMVSS No. 213a. NHTSA conducted 18 tests of 17 CRS models
on the final SISA configuration. The 17 models represented 9 different
types of child restraints, including infant, convertible

[[Page 39250]]

and combination CRSs. NHTSA selected CRSs that had a variety of self-
described (advertised) side impact protection features.
The data from the 2017 test program indicated that child restraint
system designs had changed since the publication of the NPRM in 2014.
Of the 17 models tested, one (1) model had no side impact protection
advertised, seven (7) models advertised that the product was side
impact-tested or had side impact protection, and nine (9) models self-
described the side impact technology used. Among the selected CRSs were
2 pairs of CRS models where one of the CRS had ``incremental'' improved
side impact protection, based on their product description, compared to
the other CRS. The Graco Nautilus and the Graco Nautilus Safety
Surround (discussed above this preamble) were very similar models but
the latter had a thicker head rest structure that was advertised as
providing extra protection. The Britax Boulevard and Britax Advocate
(also discussed above) were also CRSs that appeared to be similar, but
the Britax Boulevard only had two levels of side impact protection
while the Advocate had three levels of protection (according to the
advertising).
NHTSA tested the child restraints with the Q3s 3-year-old child
dummy and the CRABI-12-month-old dummy. Forward-facing CRSs were
installed using the lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage
system required by FMVSS No. 225 and the tether anchorage, and rear-
facing CRSs were installed using the lower anchorages only. Tables 12
and 13 provide a test matrix of the CRS name, orientation, installation
method, dummy used and recorded injury measures.

Table 12--Test Matrix and Summary Results of Tests With the Q3s ATD Using the Final SISA Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC15 [g] Chest
---------------- deflection
Database No. CRS Orientation Installation [mm]
IARV=570 ---------------
IARV=23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10100.................. Chicco NextFit.. FF Convertible.. CRAS............... 582.0 18.7
10101.................. Evenflo Tribute. FF Convertible.. CRAS............... 760.3 20.8
10102.................. Cosco Scenera FF Convertible.. CRAS............... 979.8 26.8
Next.
10103.................. Maxi-Cosi Pria FF Convertible.. CRAS............... 512.9 17.6
70.
10104.................. Evenflo Chase... FF Combination.. CRAS............... 937.5 24.3
10105.................. Britax Boulevard FF Convertible.. CRAS............... 521.7 * 7.08
10106.................. Britax Advocate. FF Combination.. CRAS............... 665.3 18.3
10107.................. Safety 1st FF Convertible.. CRAS............... 616.3 27.7
Advance SE Air+.
10108.................. Graco Nautilus FF Combination.. CRAS............... 609.0 13.6
65.
10109.................. Graco Nautilus FF Combination.. CRAS............... 838.5 17.9
Safety Surround.
10115.................. Cosco Scenera RF Convertible.. LA Only............ 677.7 26.2
Next.
10116.................. Graco Size4Me 65 RF Convertible.. LA Only............ 778.5 23.5
10118.................. Evenflo Triumph. RF Convertible.. LA Only............ 487.8 12.2
10117.................. Baby Trend RF Convertible.. LA Only............ 963.7 25.8
PROtect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CRAS means the full child restraint anchorage system, LA Only means lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system, RF means rear-facing, and FF means forward-facing.
* Possible data anomaly.

Results shown in Table 12 show that among forward-facing CRSs
tested with the Q3s dummy, 20 percent (2/10) had HIC15 values less than
or equal to the IARV of 570, and 70 percent (7/10) had chest deflection
less than or equal to the IARV of 23 mm. Among rear-facing CRSs tested
with the Q3s dummy, 25 percent (\1/4\) had HIC15 values less than or
equal to the IARV of 570 and 25 percent (\1/4\) had chest deflection
values less than or equal to the IARV of 23 mm.

Table 13--Test Matrix and Summary Results of Tests With the CRABI 12-Month-Old ATD Using the Final SISA
Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRC test No. CRS Orientation Installation Contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10110.................. Britax B-Safe 35 RF Infant.............. LA Only................ No.
10112.................. Cybex Aton 2 RF Infant.............. LA Only................ No.
using
telescopic side
arm.
10111.................. Evenflo Embrace RF Infant.............. LA Only................ No.
LX.
10114.................. Maxi-Cosi Mico RF Infant.............. LA Only................ No.
AP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: LA Only means lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system and RF means rear-facing.

As shown in Table 13, rear-facing CRS (infant carriers) tested with
the 12-month-old CRABI dummy showed that 100 percent (4/4) met the
containment criteria.
General Observations
The 2017 test results \83\ with the Q3s dummy show fewer child
restraints able to conform to the performance requirements of FMVSS No.
213a, compared to test results from earlier tests. In the 2014 tests
reported in the NPRM, among 12 CRS models in the forward-facing mode
tested with the Q3s dummy, 41 percent (5/12) had HIC15 values passing
the IARV and 75 percent (9/12) had chest deflection passing the IARV.
Additionally, 40 percent (2/5) of rear-facing CRSs tested with the Q3s
dummy had HIC15 and

[[Page 39251]]

chest deflection values passing their respective IARVs. Among rear-
facing CRSs (infant carriers) tested with the 12-month-old CRABI dummy,
91 percent met the containment criteria in the tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ Louden & Wietholter (2022). Available in the docket of this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be noted that for the fleet tests presented in the NPRM,
NHTSA selected the CRS models to obtain a representation of the market
at the time, with a variety of CRS manufacturers and models. For the
2017 testing done with the final SISA configuration, NHTSA selected
CRSs that had a variety of side impact protection features, but the
CRSs were not necessarily a representation of the market. The goal of
the second part of the tests using the final SISA configuration
presented in Tables 12 and 13 was to learn how the CRSs with advertised
improved side impact protection performed in the side impact test.
To select the CRSs that would be tested for the final rule
evaluations, NHTSA examined CRS designs tested in 2011-2012 with
designs updated in 2016-2017. The comparisons of designs were only done
visually, i.e., NHTSA did not undertake tear-down analyses of the
underlying structure designs.
In the test, the agency observed that some of the designs that were
not updated, or that were minimally updated, such as the Graco Classic
Ride 50,\84\ Evenflo Tribute, and Evenflo Chase, maintained the same
performance as in 2012 (see Table 5). In contrast, the performance
measures (HIC15, chest deflection, head contact) in other models that
had been redesigned since the NPRM were markedly different than in
their respective older versions. For example, the redesigned Britax
Advocate had higher HIC15 measures, and the Safety 1st Advance SE Air+
and Cosco Scenera had higher chest deflections (see Table 14) than
their respective prior versions. The redesigned Britax Advocate has a
different shell, a side structure with different shape and more
coverage (but has a similar adjustable head restraint as the older
version). The redesigned and prior versions of the Safety 1st and Cosco
models had differences in the side structures of the CRS at the head
and chest areas, and the newer versions appeared to be thicker in the
head and torso/pelvis area. The Graco Nautilus 65 2017 showed improved
chest deflections compared to the Graco Nautilus 2012, while the Graco
Nautilus Safety Surround 2017 had increased HIC15 compared to the Graco
Nautilus 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Also known as the Comfort Sport.

Table 14--Comparison of the Performance of Forward-Facing and Rear-Facing CRS Models in Tests With the Proposed and Final SISA Configurations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chest
Database No. SISA configuration CRS model HIC15 deflection Orientation
[mm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7544......................... NPRM......................... Evenflo Chase.............. 766 18.7 Forward Facing.
8253......................... NPRM......................... 987 20.1
8255......................... NPRM......................... 853 25.0
8257......................... NPRM......................... 784 25.4
10104........................ Final........................ 937 24.3
7547......................... NPRM......................... Evenflo Tribute............ 788 20.2 Forward Facing.
10101........................ Final........................ 760 20.9
8276......................... NPRM......................... Graco Classic Ride 50/Graco 742 19.3 Forward Facing.
Comfort Sport.
8278......................... NPRM......................... 679 21.5
8280......................... NPRM......................... 675 19.6
10020........................ Final........................ 672 21.6
10021........................ Final........................ 716 20.6
10022........................ Final........................ 691 20.1
7545......................... NPRM......................... Britax Advocate............ 365 19.5 Forward Facing.
10106........................ Final........................ 665 18.3
7546......................... NPRM......................... Safety 1st Air Protect/ 624 16.5 Forward Facing.
Advance SE Air+.
10107........................ Final........................ 616 27.7
8283......................... NPRM......................... Cosco Scenera/Scenera Next. 685 19.2 Rear Facing.
8285......................... NPRM......................... 714 20.2
8287......................... NPRM......................... 660 23.4
10115........................ Final........................ 678 26.2
8277......................... NPRM......................... Graco Nautilus/Nautilus 65/ 654 17.7 Forward Facing.
Nautilus Safety Surround.
8279......................... NPRM......................... 597 19.5
8281......................... NPRM......................... 625 17.0
10108........................ Final........................ 609 13.6
10109........................ Final........................ 839 17.9
7562......................... NPRM......................... Maxi Cosi Priori/Maxi Cosi 388 21.1 Forward Facing.
Pria 70.
10103........................ Final........................ 512 17.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Bold = Increased Value, Italic = Decreased Value.

Based on this testing (Table 12 and Table 14) NHTSA believes that
some of the more recently tested CRS designs may have added unnecessary
bulk. Injury values are higher in some designs that had added mass
(thickness) \85\ than those without it. The 2017 testing indicates that
placement of coverage, materials, internal structures, shape of the
coverage and other factors must be purposefully engineered, as more is
not necessarily better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ Table 10 of this final rule measured the width of the CRSs
with and without additional padding and documented the description
of the different side impact protection designs. Some CRSs were
simply visually inspected where they may have appeared to have
thicker structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA had thought in the 2014 NPRM that CRSs with greater side
coverage performed better than CRSs with a less side coverage. Designs
meeting FMVSS No. 213a's performance requirements are feasible, but the
data

[[Page 39252]]

from the 2017 program show there are optimal ways to add structure and
padding, and ways that added bulk could have an adverse effect. The
test procedure adopted by this final rule will provide a means for CRS
developers to assess, in a meaningful way, the performance of their
designs and optimize the protection of children in side impacts.

d. The 40-lb Limit for Coverage of the Standard

Consistent with the Safety Act and NHTSA's guiding principles for
this rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to apply the side impact test
requirements to CRSs designed to seat children in a weight range from
birth to 18.1 kg (0 to 40 lb). The Safety Act requires each FMVSS to be
appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle equipment for
which it is prescribed.\86\ NHTSA determined the side protection
standard would be appropriate for child restraints for children in the
0 to 18.1 kg (40 lb) group \87\ because these children have a high rate
of child restraint use (less than 1-year-old = 97.5 percent and 1- to
3-years-old \88\ = 94.3 percent according to the 2019 National Survey
of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS) \89\). Their high use rate provides
a good opportunity for reducing injuries and fatalities through a side
impact regulation.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\87\ This group encompasses children ages birth to about 4
years.
\88\ Note that, in survey data, a child who is 1 day shy of his
or her 4th birthday is still considered a 3-year-old. Therefore,
survey data representing 1- to-3-year-old children include 3-year-
old children who are nearly 4-years-old. Also, the 40 lb weight
limit represents the weight of a 75th percentile 4-year-old child
and an average 5-year-old child.
\89\ Enriquez, J. (2021, May). The 2019 National Survey of the
Use of Booster Seats (Report No. DOT HS 813 033). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. NSUBS is a probability-based
nationwide child restraint use survey conducted by NHTSA's National
Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA).
\90\ Children between 4- and 12-years-old have lower child
restraint use (4- to 7-year-olds = 55 percent and 8- to 12-year-olds
= 6 percent). Data show that 43 percent of 4- to 7-year-old and 78
percent of 8- to 12-year-old children use seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also determined that focusing on the 0 to 18.1 kg (40 lb) (0-
to 4-years-old) age group is appropriate because countermeasures are
practicable for this age group. Real-world data show that head injuries
are the most common injuries in a side impact for 0- to 4-year-old
children. According to McCray,\91\ head injuries in children 1- to 3-
years-old are slightly higher than overall for children 0 to 12 year of
age. Using padding and/or larger side wings to keep the child's head
contained and protected enables forward- and rear-facing CRSs to meet
the requirements of this final rule without adding any additional
structures to the safety seats. The Q3s dummy is also representative of
children in the upper range of this age group and can be used to assess
the performance of child safety seat countermeasures in protecting
against unreasonable head impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA also explained in the NPRM that the FMVSS No. 213a side
impact test replicates a near-side crash as experienced by a child
under 18.1 kg (40 lb) in a safety seat. The agency's test results
indicate 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 windowsill) \92\ of the vehicle door. When the
child's head is below the beltline--as likely with children weighing up
to 18.1 kg (40 lb) (0- to 4-year-old) in child restraints--protection
of the child is critically dependent on the child safety seat, as
negligible benefit is expected to be attained from the vehicle's side
curtain air bags. Older children restrained in CRSs typically sit high
enough so that the child's head is above the beltline and within the
area covered by the side curtain air bag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ 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 in passenger vehicles, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, NHTSA emphasized that, due to the absence of an array of
side impact child test dummies, focusing this rulemaking on CRSs
designed for children in a weight range that includes weights up to
18.1 kg (40 lb) properly accords with 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)'s provision
that each FMVSS be appropriate for the types of motor vehicle equipment
for which it is prescribed. NHTSA determined that the Q3s dummy
(weighing 14.5 kg (32 lb)) is representative of young children weighing
under 18.1 kg (40 lb) and is appropriate as a test device for CRSs
recommended for children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb). The dummy
would not be a suitable dummy to test the performance of CRSs in
protecting children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb), as it is not
representative of children for whom the CRS is sold.
Comments Received
NHTSA received diverse comments on the 40-lb applicability
threshold. Commenters generally agreed that the absence of a dummy
larger than the Q3s limited the agency's applying the side impact
standard to child restraints for children weighing more than 18.1 kg
(40 lb), but several commenters urged NHTSA to develop new test dummies
or use existing ones, such as frontal test dummies. No commenter
objected to NHTSA's requiring manufacturers of booster seats to limit
use of boosters to children weighing at least 18.1 kg (40 lb); six
commenters expressly supported the provision (IIHS, Dorel, Britax,
JPMA, UMTRI and Safekids). Advocates requested NHTSA provide more
support for its determination that children weighing more than 18.1 kg
(40 lb) may benefit from side curtain air bags.
IIHS concurred with NHTSA's proposed threshold applying FMVSS No.
213a to CRSs for children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) for the
reasons given in the NPRM. IIHS provided data to support the view that
children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) in booster seats are seated
high enough to take advantage of the vehicle's side curtain air bags.
The commenter explained that data it obtained during its tests of
booster seat belt fit indicate that the center of gravity (CG) of a
typical 6-year-old child's head is 600-650 millimeters (mm) above the
vehicle seat when seated in a booster, which is above the windowsill
(beltline) of 500 mm discussed in the NPRM.\93\ IIHS found that on
average, the seated height of the 6-year-old dummy in a booster seat is
within a few centimeters of the seated height of the 5th percentile
adult female dummy used in the rear seat of IIHS's dynamic side impact
test. IIHS stated that in the most recent five years of side impact
evaluations, more than 80 percent of more than 200 vehicle makes and
models received the top ratings for injury mitigation for the rear seat
occupant, and that the proportion jumps to 95 percent for the most
recent two years of evaluations. IIHS explained that in these tests,
injury risk to rear-seat occupants is reduced by a combination of
vehicle countermeasures such as curtain air bags, door structural
improvements, and voluntary padding of the beltline. IIHS stated it
expects ``vehicle countermeasures that have improved outcomes for the
5th percentile female dummy in our testing

[[Page 39253]]

would also reduce the likelihood of injury to a 6-year-old seated in a
booster seat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ NHTSA proposed a 500 mm (19.6 in) beltline height for the
SISA. See, 79 FR at 4587-4588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
After considering the comments and other available information,
NHTSA has adopted the proposed application of FMVSS No. 213a for the
reasons explained in the NPRM and further discussed below. Standard No.
213a will apply to add-on child restraint systems that are recommended
for use by children in a weight range that includes weights up to 18.1
kg (40 lb).\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ Harnesses and car beds are excepted from the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters suggested NHTSA adopt other test dummies to
expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a to CRSs for children
weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). Safe Kids, Consumers Union (CU) and
Advocates urged NHTSA to develop a 6-year-old and/or 10-year-old child
side impact dummy. Safe Ride News (SRN) encouraged the agency to work
swiftly to adopt the Q6 dummy for use specifically in side impact
tests. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) supported using the
omnidirectional Q-Series dummies used for side impact testing in United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 129 (ECE R.129).\95\
TRL stated that the dummies were capable of distinguishing differences
in the design of child restraints, and that a Q6s (6-year-old child
dummy) has been developed, along with a side impact kit for the Q10
(10-year-old child dummy). ARCCA suggested NHTSA use the Hybrid III
(HIII) frontal impact 6-year-old dummy, and measure only head
containment and structural integrity. In contrast, Graco cautioned that
the use of larger test ATDs should be considered when they have been
confirmed to withstand side impact crash forces and have proven
biofidelity in the direction of a side collision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ ECE R.129, ``Uniform provisions concerning the approval of
enhanced child restraint systems used on board vehicles (ECRS),''
<a href="http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf">http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has decided against expanding the applicability of FMVSS No.
213a to child restraints recommended for children weighing more than
18.1 kg (40 lb). TRL suggested NHTSA consider the Q-series dummies
because they are currently used to test CRSs in United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe Regulation 129 (ECE R.129).\96\ NHTSA disagrees
with TRL. In 1999, First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) \97\ deemed
the Q3 dummy's performance suboptimal in frontal testing, and even more
so in lateral. FTSS developed the Q3s dummy in response to the Q3's
suboptimal lateral performance. NHTSA has not evaluated the lateral
performance of the Q series 1-, 6- and 10-year-old dummies or Q series
side impact kits, but understands them to have the same shortcomings as
the original Q3. Given the unsatisfactory fundamental design of the Q
dummies, NHTSA decided not to use limited agency resources furthering
development of the Q-series 6- and 10-year-old dummies.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ ECE R.129, ``Uniform provisions concerning the approval of
enhanced child restraint systems used on board vehicles (ECRS),''
<a href="http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf">http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R129e.pdf</a>.
\97\ In 2010, FTSS merged to become Humanetics Innovative
Solutions.
\98\ NHTSA is developing the ``Large Omnidirectional Child
(LODC)'' 10-year-old child dummy, which is designed to have
biofidelic performance in lateral and frontal impact. Most of the
development work has been focused on frontal and oblique impacts.
NHTSA plans to evaluate and enhance the dummy for side impact
testing as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCCA suggested that NHTSA use the HIII frontal 6-year-old dummy to
evaluate CRS structural integrity and head containment. The commenter
argued that NHTSA could use the HIII 6-year-old dummy since it will use
the 12-month-old frontal CRABI dummy in FMVSS No. 213a's side impact
test.
NHTSA disagrees. As the agency explained in the NPRM, NHTSA decided
to use the frontal CRABI dummy because it would be fully restrained by
the child restraint on the SISA and no injury assessment reference
values would be taken. That is, the test with the fully restrained
frontal 12-month-old CRABI represents a best-case scenario for passing.
If a child restraint allowed the CRABI's head to contact the door under
these best-case circumstances, that would be a clear demonstration,
simply through observation of crash dynamics, that a child's head would
contact the door when involved in a real-world crash. Thus, while the
12-month-old CRABI dummy is not a side impact dummy, it could be
applied in a useful manner to evaluate aspects of CRS performance in
side impact. A failure to contain the 12-month-old CRABI's head would
lead to improved side impact designs (e.g., deeper side structure/wings
or shape changes in CRS adjustable head restraints).
The same cannot be said about the frontal 6-year-old test dummy.
Children younger than 1-year of age have the highest use of CRSs with
internal harnesses (nearly 100 percent per National Child Restraint Use
Special Study (NCRUSS) \99\), so fully restraining the 1-year-old CRABI
in the test replicates how children will be restrained in the real
world. In contrast, only 8 percent of children 6 years of age are
restrained in CRSs with internal harnesses. If the HIII 6-year-old
child dummy were restrained as 6-year-old children are usually
restrained in the real world, it would be restrained in a booster with
only a lap and shoulder belt. Many current booster seats could fail a
head containment criterion when tested with a frontal 6-year-old dummy,
even if the head of the 6-year-old dummy were above the beltline and
therefore likely to interact with a side curtain air bag in an actual
vehicle. To accurately simulate the side impact crash environment in
such testing, a representation of the side air bag appears appropriate.
This rulemaking has not considered the implications of including a side
curtain air bag on the SISA and doing so is beyond the scope of this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ NCRUSS <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCCA believed that applying FMVSS No. 213a to child restraints for
children weighing up to 29.5 kg (65 lb) would better protect children
seated in far-side and center seating positions by preventing impact
with other occupants and CRSs adjacent to the child, and helping assure
they remain properly positioned in their restraint system. SRN believed
it is likely that shorter children do not gain the full protection of
side curtain air bags in the 18.1 to 29.5 kg (40 to 65 lb) weight
range. Neither commenter provided data to support their views.
Advocates and others argued that MAP-21 does not limit improvements
only to the use of CRS by children who weigh less than 18.1 kg (40 lb).
NHTSA has determined that, while the language of section 31501(a) of
MAP-21 is broad enough to encompass a large universe of child restraint
systems, there are practical and technical 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). First, 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. NHTSA has also
determined that the test procedure of FMVSS No. 213a may not be
appropriate for testing child restraints recommended for children

[[Page 39254]]

weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). A 6-year-old in a child restraint
will interact with vehicle side structures differently than a 3-year-
old, particularly around the vehicle beltline and with respect to a
side curtain air bag. The side impact seating assembly used in FMVSS
No. 213a does not include a side curtain air bag. The agency is unable
to conclude the side impact test reasonably replicates a near-side
crash as would be experienced by a child weighing over 18.1 kg (40 lb)
in the real world, since the side curtain air bag, a key vehicle
countermeasure affecting injury outcome to occupants whose heads are
above the beltline, is not represented in the test.
Second, 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 in this final rule. As explained throughout this
rulemaking,\100\ 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 18.1 kg
(40 lb). For FMVSS No. 213's front-impact tests, NHTSA increased the
applicability of the standard to increasingly higher weight limits
gradually, and only when appropriate test dummies became available for
use in compliance testing, to ensure test data were meaningful and to
avoid giving a false sense of security about CRS performance. NHTSA is
developing the Large Omni-Directional Child ATD representative of a
seated 9- to 11-year-old child.\101\ When the development and
standardization process of this child dummy is complete, NHTSA will
consider a side impact test environment appropriate for evaluating CRSs
intended for use by older and larger sized children than those subject
to this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ See NPRM. 79 FR at 4572-4573.
\101\ Suntay, B., Carlson, M., Stammen, J., ``Evaluation of the
Large Omni-Directional Child Anthropomorphic Test Device,'' DOT HS
812 755, July 2019. Evaluation of the Large Omni-Directional Child
Anthropomorphic Test Device (<a href="http://bts.gov">bts.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP-21 requires a final rule amending FMVSS No. 213, which means
that the rulemaking must be conducted in accordance with the Safety
Act. Under the Safety Act, NHTSA 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.\102\ ``Motor
vehicle safety'' is defined in the 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.'' \103\ When prescribing such
standards, NHTSA must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle
safety information, and consider whether a standard is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle
or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.\104\ NHTSA must
also consider the extent to which the standard will further the
statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and associated
deaths.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\103\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
\104\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has developed a standard 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 Safety Act. For the reasons explained above, the agency believes
that FMVSS No. 213a meets the need for safety, is stated in objective
terms, and is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate.

e. Improving Side Impact Protection for Children Older Than 3-Years-Old

To be clear, this final rule applying to child restraints for
children weighing up to 18.1 kg (40 lb) will significantly improve side
impact protection of most children up to age 6. According to the CDC
growth charts, about 100 percent of 3-year-old children, 75 percent of
4-year-old children, 50 percent of 5-year-old children, and 25 percent
of 6-year-old children weigh 18.1 kg (40 lb) or less.\106\ Child
restraints subject to this final rule can be used by all children 0- to
3-years of age, most 4-year-olds, half of 5-year-olds, and 25 percent
of 6-year-old children. This final rule improves the side impact
protection of all these children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ Center for Disease Control (CDC) 2000 Growth Charts.
<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_charts.htm">https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_charts.htm</a>. Last Accessed
August 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule not only improves the side impact protection
offered by the safety seats but also increases the likelihood
caregivers will keep the children in the safety seats longer before
prematurely transitioning to a booster seat, which is an outcome that
improves child safety.\107\ Booster seats typically do not have
substantial side structure ``wings'' or an internal belt system to
restrain the child occupant, so it would be a technical challenge for
booster seats to meet the side impact requirements of this final rule.
However, because FMVSS No. 213a is written to apply specifically to
child restraints for children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb),
manufacturers of booster seats will likely respond to this final rule
by marketing the seats as only suitable for children weighing more than
18.1 kg (40 lb) (so as to exclude the seats from meeting FMVSS No.
213a). NHTSA believes such a change that limits use of booster seats by
small children would benefit safety, as field data show that children
weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) are safer in child safety seats than
in boosters.\108\ Thus, the 18.1 kg (40 lb) threshold will benefit
child passenger safety, as it will help keep children too small for
booster seats in child safety seats until they are ready for a booster
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ NHTSA recommends that children riding forward-facing
should be restrained in CRSs with internal harnesses (child safety
seats) as long as possible before transitioning to a booster seat.
<a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec">https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec</a>.
\108\ NHTSA's November 2, 2020, NPRM, supra, also proposed that
booster seats must not be labeled for children weighing less than
18.1 kg (40 lb). 85 FR at 69427, col. 3. FMVSS No. 213 currently
permits booster seats only to be recommended for children weighing
at least 13.6 kg (30 lb) (S5.5.2(f)). Based on an analysis of field
data and other considerations, NHTSA proposed raising the 13.6 kg
(30 lb) value. We are concerned that 30 pounds corresponds to the
weight of a 50th percentile 3-year-old, and to the weight of a 95th
percentile 18-month-old; i.e., children too small to be safely
protected in a booster seat. In the November 2, 2020 NPRM, we
proposed to amend S5.5.2(f) to raise the 13.6 kg (30 lb) limit to
18.2 kg (40 lb), which is greater than the weight of a 97th
percentile 3-year-old (17.7 kg (39.3 lb)) and approximately the
weight of an 85th percentile 4-year-old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, this final rule will also benefit the side protection of
children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) in several ways. A review
of CRS models in the market suggests that most child restraints sold
for children weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) are designed to also be
used by children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) as forward-facing
CRSs with harnesses and as booster seats.\109\ As the seated height
difference between a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old is only 3.5 inches,
the countermeasures used by the combination seat to protect children
weighing less than 18.1 kg (40 lb) could also benefit the older child
in the booster seat mode.\110\ The restraints

[[Page 39255]]

will have the same frame and can use the adjustable head protection and
side padding countermeasures provided to meet this final rule to
protect children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ These child restraints are commonly called ``combination
seats.'' They are sold for use with younger children (with a
harness) and older children (as a booster seat)
\110\ This observation accords with NTSB's comment that ``the
proposed tests encompass the majority of CRSs because the upper use
limit for most small restraint systems extends to at least 40 pounds
and the lower use limit is at or below 40 pounds . . .'' ``We
recognize that children at weights less than or greater than 40
pounds benefit from the increased protection provided by a harnessed
CRS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule will also improve the side impact protection of
booster seats by better assuring that only children large enough (over
18.1 kg (40 lb)) to be protected by the side curtain air bag will use
the seats. NHTSA stated in the preamble to the NPRM that the height of
children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in a CRS would be
sufficient to take advantage of the vehicle's side impact protection
systems, such as side curtain air bags.\111\ IIHS provided data
confirming that side curtain air bags can protect children weighing
over 18.1 kg (40 lb) seated in booster seats. The data show that the CG
of the head of a 6-year-old child seated in a booster seat is above the
beltline at 600-650 mm above the vehicle seat, and is within a few
centimeters of the position of the head of the 5th percentile adult
female test dummy. In IIHS's tests, the vehicles received the top
ratings for injury mitigation for the rear seat occupant represented by
the 5th percentile adult female test dummy, demonstrating the side
curtain air bags, door structural improvements, and padding of the
beltline were effective in protecting the 5th percentile adult female
in side impacts. IIHS's data indicate a 6-year-old in a booster is
situated in the rear seat similarly to a 5th percentile female, and
that both occupants will be positioned relative to the beltline and the
side curtain air bags in a manner that would enable them to benefit
from the vehicle countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ 79 FR at 4573, col. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA has also reviewed more recent data IIHS presented at the 2018
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Government Industry Meeting.\112\
The study showed that the HIII-6-year-old head CG in a high back
booster and a backless booster are above the beltline and are 33 and 64
mm lower, respectively, than that of the SID-IIs 5th percentile female
side impact dummy. These data again verify that a 6-year-old child in a
booster will be in-position to be protected by the vehicle's side
impact protection countermeasures, which include the side curtain air
bag and door structural improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ The IIHS SAE Government Industry meeting presentation
titled ``Booster seat characteristics in the US market'' can be
found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following on these findings, NHTSA measured the HIII 6-year-old
dummy in four booster seat models installed on the SISA and compared
its positioning with the SID-IIs dummy seated directly on the SISA. The
booster seats were the Evenflo Chase and the Graco Nautilus (high back
boosters), and the Harmony Youth and the Graco Affix (backless
boosters). The measurements show that the HIII 6-year-old dummy's head
CG, when seated in the highest booster seat (Graco Nautilus 65) is 1 mm
higher than that of the SID-IIs dummy seated on the SISA, and less than
5 cm (47.5 mm) lower than the SID-IIs dummy's head when seated in the
shortest booster seat (Graco Affix). All head CGs were above the
beltline (see Figure 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN22.005

These data confirm the similarity between the head position of the
6-year-old dummy seated in a booster seat and that of the 5th
percentile female dummy. FMVSS No. 226 ejection mitigation phase-in
requirements were completed in September 2017. Thus, not only will all
new vehicles have side curtain air bag technologies that will protect
these older children in booster seats, but most of the fleet will
incorporate these technologies by the

[[Page 39256]]

compliance date of this final rule. The technologies can benefit older
and larger children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) or with a
stature of more than 1100 mm (43.3 inches) when the children are
properly positioned by a typical booster seat.
The safety of booster seats will be directly improved by assuring
that only children large enough to be protected by the side curtain air
bag will use the seats. Until this final rule, booster seats could be
labeled for children with weights as low as 13.6 kg (30 lb).
Restricting booster seat use instructions to children weighing more
than 18.1 kg (40 lb) will help ensure they will be used only by
children large enough to take advantage of a vehicle's side protection
countermeasures. Booster seats have been shown to be highly beneficial
in frontal crashes, and are needed to transition children from safety
seats to a vehicle belt system. This final rule increases the safety of
booster seats by enhancing their utility in side impacts, in
furtherance of MAP-21's mandate to improve the protection of children
seated in child restraint systems during side impacts.
Since the NPRM's publication in 2014, NHTSA has seen a few booster-
seat models that provide a lower than typical boosting height (the
height that a booster seat raises a seated child), which may not raise
the height of children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) sufficiently
to take advantage of the vehicle countermeasures. Subsequently, NHTSA
sponsored a research program \113\ as a first step toward determining a
minimum boosting height for CRSs recommended for children weighing more
than 18.1 kg (40 lb) to ensure that these children can benefit from the
vehicle countermeasures and that the CRSs provide enough lift to
position the child properly relative to the vehicle's lap and shoulder
belts. More on this research is discussed at a later section of this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ Klinich, Kathleen D., Jones, Monica H., Manary, Miriam A.,
Ebert, Sheila H., Boyle, Kyle J., Malik, Laura, Orton, Nichole R.,
Reed, Matthew P., (2020, April). Investigation of potential design
and performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and
dynamic testing (Report No. DOT HS 812 919). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Link: <a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Weight as a Limiting Factor

Advocates stated ``a discussion of why weight alone is being
proposed as a limitation should be provided, considering the repeated
discussion of the obesity problem facing the nation's youth and the
agency's acknowledgement that seated height, rather than weight alone,
is the determining factor.''
Agency Response
The applicability of the standard is not only based on the child
weight recommendation for use of the CRS but also on the child height
recommendation. The NPRM proposed in S3 to apply the standard 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 18.1 kg (40 lb), or by children in a height range that includes
children whose height is not greater than 1100 mm.'' \114\ This final
rule adopts the proposed S3. Additionally, the dummy selection for side
impact dynamic testing is made taking into consideration weight and
height. Any CRS that is recommended for children weighing between 13.6
kg (30 lb) (corresponding to a 95th percentile 18-month-old) and 18.1
kg (40 lb) (corresponding to a 85th percentile 4-year-old) or a height
between 870 mm (34.3 inches) (corresponding to a 95th percentile 18-
month-old) and 1100 mm (43.3 inches) (corresponding to a 97th
percentile 4-year-old) will be tested with the Q3s dummy (see Table
15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ 79 FR at 4601.

Table 15--Comparison of Weight and Height by Percentiles for Young Children and Child ATDs 115
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight kg (lb) Height mm (in)
Percentiles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd 5th 50th 95th 97th 3rd 5th 50th 95th 97th
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 MO Child................................................... 8.1 (18.1) 8.3 (18.5) 9.9 (22) 11.9 (26.4) 12.2 (27.2) 697.1 703.2 750.6 (29.6) 800.2 (31.5) 807.5 (31.8)
(27.4) (27.7)
12 MO CRABI................................................... .......... .......... 9.9 ........... ........... ........... ........... 740.4 ............ ............
(22.05) (29.15)
18 MO Child................................................... 9.3 (20.7) 9.5 (21.2) 11.3 13.5 (30.1) 14 (31) 753.6 761.1 (30) 814.4 (32.1) 868.2 (34.2) 875.9 (34.5)
(25.2) (29.7)
18 MO CRABI................................................... .......... .......... 11.1 ........... ........... ........... ........... 817.9 (32.2) ............ ............
(24.7)
24 MO Child................................................... 10.1 10.4 (23) 12.3 14.8 (32.9) 15.3 (33.9) 800.5 809 (31.9) 866.9 (34.1) 924.8 (36.4) 933.8 (36.8)
(22.5) (27.4) (31.5)
36 MO Child................................................... 11.4 11.9 13.9 (31) 17.2 (38.1) 17.7 (39.3) 875.9 884.9 947.4 (37.3) 1013.8 1023.7
(25.4) (26.4) (34.5) (34.8) (39.9) (40.3)
Q3s........................................................... .......... .......... 14.5 (32) ........... ........... ........... ........... 978 (38.5) ............ ............
48 MO Child................................................... 12.9 13.2 16 (35.5) 20.2 (44.8) 46.6 (46.6) 936.5 946.4 1015.8 (40) 1087.7 1098.2
(28.7) (29.4) (36.9) (37.3) (42.8) (43.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter's reference to ``the obesity problem facing the
nation's youth'' was not clear, but it could be that Advocates was
arguing that the standard should apply to child restraints for children
weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). NHTSA disagrees with increasing the
40-lb threshold because the absence of a test dummy to test the side
impact protection provided to heavier children makes raising the
threshold non-evidence based and could provide a false sense of
security about the protection afforded to the larger children. This
issue is discussed at length in the section discussing the scope of the
new standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ Center for Disease Control (CDC) 2000 Growth Charts.
<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_charts.htm">https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_charts.htm</a>... Last Accessed
August 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Labeling CRSs for Children Weighing Over 18.1 kg (40 lb)

1. Label as ``Not Tested in Side Impacts''
Comments Received
Advocates commented that booster seats designed for children
weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb) should be labeled to provide parents
with a warning that their child may not be protected in a side crash.
Advocates stated that the warning should indicate ``this CRS has not
been tested in side impacts for the protection of children weighing
more than 18.1 kg (40 lb).'' Similarly, a law student group suggested
there should be labeling or consumer information on the packaging of
CRSs informing consumers that the CRS has not been tested for side
impact crashes for children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb).
Agency Response
NHTSA has carefully considered the request but declines to adopt
such a requirement in this final rule. The issue was not discussed in
the NPRM, and NHTSA would like the benefit of more public discourse on
the ramifications of such a requirement. NHTSA highly values consumers'
knowing how child restraints can protect their children's safety.
However, information provided

[[Page 39257]]

on or with child restraints must be carefully worded so as not to
confuse caregivers or cause unintended responses to it. For example,
the agency is concerned that a statement such as, ``This CRS has not
been tested in side impacts for the protection of children weighing
more than 18.1 kg (40 lb)'' may be interpreted by some as saying the
CRS is not regulated in any way under any Federal standard, since an
average consumer is unlikely to know the applicability or extent of
FMVSS No. 213 versus FMVSS No. 213a. Before adopting such a labeling
requirement, NHTSA should evaluate the risk that a caregiver might
respond to the label by deciding to forgo use of a booster seat or
other CRS entirely when the child reaches 18.1 kg (40 lb). Such an
outcome would lead to a degradation of child passenger safety. NHTSA is
also concerned that the statement might dampen efforts on the part of
researchers and engineers to develop potential improvements to side
impact protection for older children, such as by developing data-driven
countermeasures using methods (e.g., mathematical models along with
human body models) that simulate the side impact test of this final
rule.
2. Head Under Window Sill
Advocates suggested that instructions to parents (either in vehicle
manuals or other sources) should indicate that children below a certain
height, or whose head does not reach entirely above the sill of the
vehicle window, should be restrained properly in a safety seat since
they may not be afforded protection by side impact safety requirements
designed to protect adults. The commenter suggested that a similar form
of diagram and wording on booster seats for taller and/or heavier
children would also assist parents in selecting the proper seating
method to ensure protection. The law students suggested that the
packaging should indicate that children whose heads do not reach above
the windowsill should be restrained in a CRS.
Agency Response
NHTSA is declining these suggestions to adopt the measures in this
final rule. The agency would like to know more about the need for such
instructions and their effectiveness. NHTSA is conducting a research
program to determine a minimum boosting height for CRSs recommended for
children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). As a first step, NHTSA
evaluated the boosting height of current booster seat designs
recommended for children weighing more than 18.1 kg (40 lb). The
evaluation included posture and belt fit measures for 24 child
volunteers aged 4 to 12 seated in six different booster seat models
that were installed in 3 different vehicle models and in laboratory
seating conditions representing the range of cushion lengths and belt
geometries in later model vehicle rear seats.\116\ Among the program's
next steps, the research will seek to determine whether CRS seating
platforms should be at least a minimum height to position the head of
the child high enough to benefit from vehicle side impact protection
countermeasures. If a minimum boosting height can be determined, NHTSA
may consider rulemaking to specify a minimum boosting height. Results
from NHTSA's research will help inform the agency as to whether the
suggested warning label is merited for some CRSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ Klinich, Kathleen D., Jones, Monica H., Manary, Miriam A.,
Ebert, Sheila H., Boyle, Kyle J., Malik, Laura, Orton, Nichole R.,
Reed, Matthew P., (2020, April). Investigation of potential design
and performance criteria for booster seats through volunteer and
dynamic testing (Report No. DOT HS 812 919). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Link: <a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49119</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Aspects of the FMVSS 213a Test Procedure

NHTSA developed this final rule to replicate a vehicle-to-vehicle
intersection crash. NHTSA explained in the NPRM that this side impact
is best replicated in a test procedure that reflects the dynamic
elements of both the striking and struck vehicle in the crash. NHTSA
stated 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. NHTSA concluded
that basing the specification of these parameters on actual vehicle
crash characteristics would enable the realistic simulation of the
relative velocity between the intruding door and the CRS. Accordingly,
the agency developed FMVSS No. 213a to simulate a full-scale vehicle-
to-vehicle side impact based on the MDB requirements of FMVSS No. 214,
``Side impact protection.'' \117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ As explained above in this document, FMVSS No. 214
specifies performance requirements for the protection of occupants
in side impact 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 an MDB simulating an impacting
vehicle. 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).
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 24.1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

To simulate the side impact crash for purposes of testing CRS
performance, NHTSA proposed using a dynamic sled test based on an
acceleration sled system \118\ that was developed by Takata.\119\ The
Takata procedure is based on an acceleration sled with a test buck
consisting 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.
Aluminum honeycomb is mounted below the side door structure. The side
door is made to reach a desired velocity prior to the aluminum
honeycomb contacting the sliding ``vehicle'' seat structure. Together,
the sliding seat and door structure are referred to as the

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 30, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.