[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21836-21852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 02-12151]
RIN 2127-AI83


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and 
Documentation Act of 2000 directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for 
the purpose of improving the safety of child restraints and specified 
various elements that must be considered in the rulemaking. NHTSA has 
issued two notices of proposed rulemaking that together address all but 
side and rear impact protection requirements for children in child 
restraint systems.
    NHTSA is addressing side impact protection in an ANPRM, instead of 
a notice of proposed rulemaking, because there are uncertainties in too 
many areas to issue a proposal now. These areas include: the 
determination of child

[[Page 21837]]

injury mechanisms in side impacts, and crash characteristics associated 
with serious and fatal injuries to children in child restraints; 
development of test procedures, a suitable test dummy and appropriate 
injury criteria; and identification of cost beneficial countermeasures. 
Uncertainties in these areas, together with the statutory schedule for 
this rulemaking, make it difficult for the agency to assess and make 
judgments concerning the benefits and costs of a rulemaking on side 
impact protection. Accordingly, we believe that the most appropriate 
course of action at this point is to issue this ANPRM to obtain 
additional information that will help us decide whether it is possible 
and appropriate to issue a proposal in the near future and/or identify 
additional work that needs to be done.
    Also in response to the Act, this ANPRM requests comments on the 
appropriateness of proposing to incorporate a rear impact test 
procedure into Standard No. 213, for rear-facing child restraint 
systems.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than July 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click 
on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions for 
filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your 
comments, you should mention the docket number of this document. You 
may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Mike Huntley of the NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-
366-0029.
    For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita of the NHTSA Office 
of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Side Impact Safety Problem
    a. Fatalities
    b. Injuries
III. Current Regulatory Approaches
    a. Absence of Any Requirement Worldwide
    b. Consumer Ratings Programs
IV. Performance in a Dynamic Test
    a. Should Head Excursion Be Limited in a 20 mph Dynamic Test 
(``No Wall Test'')?
    b. Should HIC Be Limited in a 15 mph Dynamic Test with a Rigid 
Side Structure (``Wall Test'')?
    c. Are Both Tests Needed?
V. Countermeasure Development
    a. Countermeasures That Better Retain And Cushion The Child's 
Head
    b. Countermeasures That Keep The Child Restraint From Moving 
Laterally In A Side Impact
    c. Countermeasures That Reduce The Local Stiffness Of Vehicle 
Components Areas Where Children Are Most Likely To Hit Their Heads.
VI. Specific Issues On Side Impact On Which Comments Are Requested
    a. Crash Characteristics
    b. Child Injury Mechanisms
    c. Test Procedures
    1. Are The Approaches Reasonable?
    2. ISO
    d. Performance Requirements
    e. Test Dummies
    f. Design Restriction
    g. Consumer Acceptance
    h. Potentially Affected Child Restraints
    i. Potential Cost
    j. Potential Benefits
VII. Rear Impact Protection
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
IX. Submission of Comments

I. Background

    This document requests comments on the agency's work in developing 
a possible side impact protection requirement for child restraint 
systems and on refinements to the approach the agency has taken thus 
far. The agency's work on this subject was prompted by section 14 of 
the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation 
Act (the TREAD Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 
1800). Section 14 directs the agency to initiate a rulemaking for the 
purpose of improving the safety of child restraints and specifies 
elements that the agency is to consider in that rulemaking. The section 
directed NHTSA to initiate that rulemaking by November 1, 2001, and to 
complete it by issuing a final rule or taking other action by November 
1, 2002.
    The relevant provisions in section 14 are as follows:

    (a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of improving the safety of 
child restraints, including minimizing head injuries from side 
impact collisions.
    (b) Elements for Consideration.--In the rulemaking required by 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider--
    (1) Whether to require more comprehensive tests for child 
restraints than the current Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
requires, including the use of dynamic tests that--
    (A) Replicate an array of crash conditions, such as side-impact 
crashes and rear-impact crashes; and
    (B) Reflect the designs of passenger motor vehicles as of the 
date of enactment of this Act;
    (2) Whether to require the use of anthropomorphic test devices 
that--
    (A) Represent a greater range of sizes of children including the 
need to require the use of an anthropomorphic test device that is 
representative of a ten-year-old child; and
    (B) Are Hybrid III anthropomorphic test devices;
    (3) Whether to require improved protection from head injuries in 
side-impact and rear-impact crashes;
    (4) How to provide consumer information on the physical 
compatibility of child restraints and vehicle seats on a model-by-
model basis;
    (5) Whether to prescribe clearer and simpler labels and 
instructions required to be placed on child restraints;
    (6) Whether to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
213 (49 CFR 571.213) to cover restraints for children weighing up to 
80 pounds;
    (7) Whether to establish booster seat performance and structural 
integrity requirements to be dynamically tested in 3-point lap and 
shoulder belts;
    (8) Whether to apply scaled injury criteria performance levels, 
including neck injury, developed for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 208 to child restraints and booster seats covered by in 
[sic] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213; and
    (9) Whether to include [a] child restraint in each vehicle crash 
tested under the New Car Assessment Program.
    (c) Report to Congress.--If the Secretary does not incorporate 
any element described in subsection (b) in the final rule, the 
Secretary shall explain, in a report to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of 
Representatives Committee on Commerce submitted within 30 days after 
issuing the final rule, specifically why the Secretary did not 
incorporate any such element in the final rule.
    (d) Completion.-- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Secretary shall complete the rulemaking required by subsection 
(a) not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint 
Systems'' (49 CFR 571.213) regulates the performance of a child 
restraint system in dynamic tests involving a 30 mph velocity change, 
representative of a frontal impact. To protect children, the standard 
limits the amount of force that can be exerted on the head and chest of 
a child test dummy during the dynamic testing. It also limits the 
amount of excursion of head and knee excursion in those tests to reduce 
the possibility that children in child restraint systems

[[Page 21838]]

might contact vehicle interior surfaces and be injured during a frontal 
crash. Additional performance and labeling requirements are also 
specified in the standard.
    Partly in response to the TREAD Act and partly in fulfillment of 
agency plans to upgrade Standard No. 213, NHTSA has issued two notices 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) addressing all elements specified in 
section 14 except for side and rear impact protection. On November 2, 
2001, the agency issued an NPRM proposing to improve the instructions 
and labels required on child restraints. (66 FR 55623). The second NPRM 
has been issued concurrently with today's document, and is published in 
today's edition of the Federal Register. In it, the agency is proposing 
to incorporate the following elements into the standard: (a) An updated 
bench seat used to dynamically test add-on child restraint systems; (b) 
a sled pulse that provides a wider test corridor; (c) improved child 
test dummies; (d) expanded applicability to child restraint systems 
recommended for use by children weighing up to 65 pounds; and (e) new 
or revised injury criteria to assess the dynamic performance of child 
restraints.
    NHTSA is addressing side impact protection in an ANPRM, instead of 
a notice of proposed rulemaking, because there are uncertainties in too 
many areas to issue a proposal now. These areas include: (a) Crash 
characteristics associated with serious and fatal injuries to children 
in child restraints and the child injury mechanisms in side impacts, 
and; (b) development of test procedures, a suitable test dummy and 
appropriate injury criteria; and (c) identification of cost beneficial 
countermeasures. The schedule specified in the TREAD Act for initiating 
and completing this rulemaking has limited the amount and variety of 
information that the agency could obtain, and testing that the agency 
could conduct, to develop test procedures and injury criteria and 
identify possible countermeasures and examine their efficacy on child 
restraint performance. The agency has also been hampered by a lack of 
specific accident data on children in motor vehicle crashes generally, 
and particularly in side impact crashes. There are few available data 
on how children are being injured and killed in side impacts (e.g., to 
what degree injuries are caused by intrusion of an impacting vehicle or 
other object). Together, these limitations have made it difficult to 
assess and compare the benefits and costs of provisions that could be 
included in a rulemaking proposal on side impact.
    Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe we have made progress 
toward developing a potential regulatory proposal to improve the side 
impact performance of child restraint systems. We have analyzed crash 
data and have developed a dynamic side impact test. We have identified 
possible countermeasures. However, we have not evaluated the 
countermeasures to determine their feasibility and benefit, although we 
will study potential countermeasures for rear-facing restraints in 
2002. Information from that study will help us further evaluate the 
course of action that the agency should pursue in this rulemaking. From 
the information and analysis that we have, it appears that if we were 
to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on side impact, it might 
involve significantly higher costs per equivalent life saved than those 
in most NHTSA vehicle safety rulemakings.
    Because of all these factors, we believe that the most appropriate 
course of action at this point is to issue this ANPRM to obtain 
additional information that will help us decide whether it is possible 
and appropriate to issue a proposal in the near future and/or identify 
additional work that needs to be done. Through issuing this ANPRM, we 
hope to obtain more information about matters such as the harm to 
restrained children in side impacts, such as the child injury 
mechanisms and the crash characteristics associated with serious and 
fatal injuries. We seek comment on the suitability of the test 
procedures we are considering, of the dummy we might use in a test 
procedure, and on possible injury criteria. We want cost, benefit and 
other information on possible countermeasures that would be effective 
in improving side impact protection, particularly the possible 
countermeasures we have identified. As a result of issuing this ANPRM, 
the agency anticipates receiving information that will improve its 
ability to assess the merits of this rulemaking and thus aid the agency 
in making decisions about the future course of this rulemaking.

II. Side Impact Safety Problem

a. Fatalities

    Passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in the United States, as 
reported in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), for all 
ages, increased slightly (4 percent) over the period from 1991 to 2000 
(from 30,776 in 1991 to 31,910 in 2000). In comparison, fatalities 
involving children in the age range 0 to 8 years old decreased slightly 
(3 percent), from 923 in 1991 to 895 in 2000. Child occupant 
fatalities, 0 to 8 years old, accounted for approximately 3 percent of 
all passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in each of those years.
    Despite the slight increase in total passenger vehicle occupant 
fatalities, the overall motor vehicle crash fatality rate has been 
declining, from 1.9 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT) in 1991 to 1.5 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2000. Part of 
the decline in the fatality rate is attributable to the increasing use 
of occupant restraints. The first National Occupant Protection Use 
Survey (NOPUS), in 1994, estimated that 58 percent of passenger vehicle 
front seat occupants were restrained. By December 1999, this rate had 
increased to 67 percent. Correspondingly, the percentage of 
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities decreased, from 67 
percent in 1991 to 55 percent in 2000, although unrestrained occupants 
still make up the majority of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. 
Similarly, the restraining of children has also increased. NOPUS shows 
the percentage of children under 5 being restrained increased from 66 
percent in 1994 to 92 percent in 2000. This increase is reflected in 
FARS data. The percentage of fatally injured children, 0 to 8 years 
old, who were unrestrained, decreased from 61 percent in 1991 to 41 
percent in 2000. Unrestrained child occupants no longer are the 
majority of child occupants killed in motor vehicle crashes, but still 
constitute a large percentage of the overall total.
    Prompted by a media safety campaign that began in 1996 to move 
children to the rear seat, the rear seat has replaced the front seat as 
the most frequently chosen seating position for children in passenger 
vehicles. This change in front versus rear seat exposure has 
contributed to a significant change in the distribution of child 
occupant fatalities within vehicles. A steep decline in front seat 
child occupant fatalities occurred in the last half of the 1990's, with 
total front seat fatalities for the age group dropping from 411 in 1995 
to 239 in 2000 (a decrease of 42 percent). Rear seat child occupant 
fatalities increased during that time period, from 463 in 1995 to 561 
in 2000. Thus, of those children (in known seating positions; front 
seat versus rear seats), between 1995 and 2000, front seat fatalities 
decreased by 172 and rear seat fatalities increased by 98, resulting in 
an overall decrease of 74 fatalities. The reduction in overall 
fatalities is the result of the rear seat being a safer environment and 
an increase in restraint use over those years.

[[Page 21839]]

    For passenger vehicle child occupants, ages 0 to 8 years old, data 
from FARS for 1991-2000 show that, regardless of whether the child was 
seated in the front seat or second seat, frontal and side crashes 
account for most child occupant fatalities. Fifty-one percent of front 
seat child occupant fatalities were in frontal crashes, and 31 percent 
were in side impact crashes. Rear impact crashes accounted for 4 
percent of front seat child fatalities. For rear seat child occupants, 
frontal impacts and side impact crashes accounted for 44 percent and 42 
percent of the fatalities, respectively, while rear impact crashes 
accounted for 14 percent of the fatalities.
    Seating position relative to the point of impact is also a factor 
in side impact crash fatalities. For the 3,018 front seat child 
fatalities, 22 percent were killed in near side impacts, i.e., they 
were in the outboard seating position on the impacted side of the 
vehicle. Of the 3,826 rear seat fatalities, 25 percent involved near 
side impacts. Of the 682 children ages 0 to 8 years old who were killed 
in side impacts and were secured in child restraints, 64 percent (434) 
were seated in the near side position. The remaining 36 percent of the 
fatalities (248) for children in child restraints were seated either in 
the middle seating position or in the ``far side'' position, i.e., the 
outboard seating position on the opposite side from the point of 
impact.

b. Injuries

    The number of occupants of passenger vehicles injured in motor 
vehicle crashes in the United States, as reported by National 
Automotive Sampling System-General Estimates Systems (NASS-GES) for all 
ages, increased moderately (5 percent) over the period from 1991 to 
2000 (from 2,797,000 in 1991 to 2,938,000 in 2000). In contrast, for 
child occupants 0 to 8 years old, the number injured decreased (7 
percent), from 141,000 in 1991 to 132,000 in 2000. The number of child 
occupants, 0 to 8 years old, injured in motor vehicle crashes accounted 
for approximately 5 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant injuries 
in each year.
    As in the case of fatalities, despite the moderate increase in the 
number of injured passenger vehicle occupants, the overall motor 
vehicle injury rate has been declining. In 1991, the number of persons 
injured in motor vehicle crashes per 100 million VMT was 143. By 1999, 
the injury rate had declined to 120 per 100 million VMT, a drop of 16 
percent. The increased use of occupant restraints is reflected in the 
declining number of unrestrained injured occupants and increasing 
numbers of restrained occupants. For all ages, the percentage of 
unrestrained injured occupants decreased from 27 percent of injured 
occupants in 1991 to 12 percent in 2000. The number of child occupants, 
0 to 8 years old, who were injured and unrestrained decreased from 
40,800 (31 percent of all injured child occupants) in 1991 to 14,000 
(12 percent of all injured) in 2000. This is a decrease of 61 percent. 
Correspondingly, the number of child occupants in this age group who 
were injured while restrained in a child restraint system or in a lap 
and/or shoulder belt increased significantly during this time-period. 
The number of child occupants injured while restrained by a child 
restraint rose from 20,000 in 1991 to 37,000 in 2000, an increase of 84 
percent. The number of child occupants injured while restrained in a 
lap and/or shoulder belt rose from 48,200 in 1991 to 66,300 in 2000, an 
increase of 38 percent.
    An examination of NASS-Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data over 
the 1991-2000 period yielded important insights regarding the type and 
severity of injuries to children in motor vehicles crashes. First, 
children 0 to 8 years old are most susceptible to head injuries. Fifty-
seven percent of all injuries to child occupants in crashes are head 
injuries (mostly scrapes, cuts and concussions). Second, the majority 
of injuries to child occupants, even to the head, tend to be of very 
low severity. By use of the abbreviated injury scale (AIS 1 = minor 
injury through AIS 6 = maximum, untreatable, injury), an assessment of 
fatality risk may be made. Of all injuries reported for children 0 to 8 
years old, 91.6 percent of these injuries were within the AIS 1 (or 
least severe) category. Another 4.6 percent were of AIS 2 (moderate 
severity) category. The remaining 3.8 percent of injuries to child 
occupants fell within AIS 3 through AIS 6 (severe to untreatable) 
categories. This injury distribution for child occupants compares 
favorably with that for occupants of all ages, for whom 88 percent of 
the injuries were within the AIS 1 category, 8.0 percent were of AIS 2 
category, and 3.9 percent fell within AIS 3 through AIS 6 categories.
    Approximately 16 percent of the injuries to children were sustained 
from side impact crashes. Although detailed information of specific 
injury mechanisms sustained by children in this collision mode is 
somewhat lacking, overall trends of susceptibility to head injury is 
consistent for side impact.

III. Current Regulatory Approaches

a. Absence of Any Requirement Worldwide

    Currently, no country or region has a requirement specifying a 
minimum level of performance for child restraints in a dynamic side 
impact simulation. Efforts around the world to improve child restraint 
safety have concentrated on performance in frontal impacts because they 
account for more injuries and fatalities than any other crash mode and 
because the potential for countermeasure development is greater, given 
the amount of available space in which the crash forces can be 
mitigated.\1\ This focus also reflects the fact that, for side crashes, 
(a) data are not widely available as to how children are being injured 
and killed in side impacts (e.g., to what degree injuries are caused by 
intrusion of an impacting vehicle or other object), (b) potential 
countermeasures for side impact intrusion have not been developed, and 
(c) there is not a consensus on an appropriate child test dummy and 
associated injury criteria for side impact testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ That effort has also culminated in a harmonized standard for 
an improved child restraint anchorage system, which NHTSA 
incorporated into its regulations in 1999 (Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 225, 49 CFR 571.225). Standard No. 225 requires 
motor vehicle manufacturers to provide vehicles equipped with the 
child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and 
independent of the vehicle seat belts. The new independent system 
has two lower anchorages, and one upper anchorage. Each lower 
anchorage includes a rigid round rod or ``bar'' unto 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 anchorage is a ring-like object to which the upper 
tether of a child restraint system can be attached. (The system is 
widely known as the ``LATCH system,'' an acronym developed by 
manufacturers and retailers for ``lower anchors and tether for 
children.'') The LATCH system is required to be installed at two 
rear seating positions. In addition, a tether anchorage is required 
at a third position. By requiring an easy-to-use anchorage system 
that is independent of the vehicle seat belts, NHTSA's standard 
makes possible more effective child restraint installation and 
thereby increases child restraint effectiveness and child safety. 
The standard is estimated to save 36 to 50 lives annually, and 
prevent 1,231 to 2,929 injuries. See 64 FR 10786; March 5, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consumer Ratings Programs

    Nonetheless, some entities around the world have focused attention 
on side impact safety by developing consumer information rating 
programs that assess child restraint performance in side impact tests. 
The European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) was established in 
1997, and is funded by governments, the European Commission, and 
consumer organizations. Euro NCAP has

[[Page 21840]]

developed a protocol for rating vehicles equipped with child restraints 
in frontal and side impacts. The protocol is being used in Europe. 
(This is separate from the performance standard for child restraints 
that has been issued by the Economic Commission for European (ECE), ECE 
Regulation R44.\2\) In the Euro NCAP side impact test protocol, 
vehicles are impacted with a moving deformable barrier traveling at 30 
mph at a 90-degree angle. An 18-month-old dummy and a 3-year-old dummy 
are used in the evaluation, neither of which was specifically designed 
to evaluate performance in side impacts. The vehicle is rated on dummy 
head containment, resultant head acceleration, and chest acceleration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Regulation 44, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of 
Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power-Driven Vehicles 
(``Child Restraint Systems'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The New South Wales (NSW), Australia RTA, as part of its joint 
program with the NRMA Limited and the Royal Automotive Club of Victoria 
(RACV) to assess the relative performance of child restraints available 
in Australia, administers a program that incorporates a lateral dynamic 
sled test of tethered child restraints with a 20 mph pulse. NSW RTA 
assesses the dummy's lateral head excursion relative to a simulated 
vehicle door. In this test, the door structure is fixed, and there is 
no attempt to simulate intrusion of the door structure. Child 
restraints are ranked in part on their ability to prevent the dummy's 
head from hitting the door.

IV. Performance in a Dynamic Test

    While the child's head seems to be the area most affected in side 
impact crashes, the agency has not been able to confirm whether the 
majority of injuries and fatalities occur primarily due to direct head 
contact with the vehicle interior or other objects in the vehicle, or 
whether these injuries and fatalities are a result of non-contact, 
inertial loadings on the head and neck structure. To address these 
injuries and fatalities, the agency has been considering two side 
impact performance tests for child restraints. The agency has assumed 
that child restraints that perform satisfactorily in these tests (i.e., 
that meet certain performance criteria) when dynamically tested would 
be able to reduce the likelihood and/or severity of these head strikes 
in many side impacts.
    The tests are modeled after the test that RTA of NSW, Australia, 
uses today in the child restraint ratings program it administers, and 
are similar to a proposal issued by NHTSA when dynamic testing of child 
restraints was first contemplated (42 FR 7959; March 1, 1974). Under 
the 1974 NHTSA proposal, a 90-degree lateral impact would have been 
conducted simulating a 20 mph crash. When tested in this fashion, each 
child restraint would have been required to retain the test dummy 
within the system, limit head motion to 19 inches in each lateral 
direction measured from the exterior surface of the dummy's head, and 
suffer no loss of structural integrity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA subsequently withdrew the proposal after testing a 
number of restraints at a speed of 20 mph and at a horizontal angle 
of 60 degrees from the direction of the test platform travel. The 
research found that for outboard seating positions, only one of 
those restraints--one that required a tether--could meet the lateral 
head excursion limits that had been proposed in the NPRM. This was 
of concern because tethers were widely unused at that time. Further, 
the agency found that some restraints with impact shields, which 
performed well in frontal crashes and which were rarely misused, 
could not pass the lateral test even when placed in the center 
seating position. The agency decided not to pursue lateral testing 
of child restraints given the cost of the design changes that would 
have been necessary to meet the lateral test, the problems with 
misuse of tethers, and the possible price sensitivity of child 
restraint sales. (43 FR 21470, 21474; May 18, 1978.)
    We have revisited this issue in light of several developments in 
recent years. Forward-facing child restraints are now subject to a 
28-inch head excursion limit that results in most of them having 
tethers. Vehicles are now required to have user-ready tether 
anchorages in rear seating positions, along with standardized child 
restraint anchorage systems, as part of the requirements of Standard 
No. 225. We expect that with user-ready anchorages in vehicles, and 
with most new child restraints incorporating tether straps in order 
to meet the more stringent head excursion requirement of Standard 
No. 213, tethers will generally be used, and thus there is a greater 
likelihood that countermeasures that depend on tether use will be 
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Should Head Excursion Be Limited in a 20 mph Dynamic Test (``No Wall 
Test'')?

    We have been considering the merits of a dynamic test requirement 
replicating a side impact, using a 20 mph velocity change (Figure 1 of 
this preamble depicts the pulse we are considering for the 20 mph 
test). This speed is consistent with the speed used by RTA of NSW, 
Australia, in its consumer ratings program and with the 1974 NHTSA 
proposal. We envision tethering the child restraint, and orienting it 
at 90 degrees to the direction of sled travel. The 90-degree 
orientation would be consistent with the Euro NCAP protocol and 
Australian rating program.
    NHTSA conducted a series of 15 HYGE sled tests using the existing 
FMVSS No. 213 seat fixture oriented at both 90 deg. and 45 deg. 
relative to the motion of the sled buck. The matrix of tests is shown 
below.

                                                          Table 1.--Matrix of Side-Impact Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            CRABI 12-month-old rear-facing                      HIII 3-year-old forward-facing
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Cosco Triad               Century STE               Cosco Triad               Century STE
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    45 deg.      90 deg.      45 deg.      90 deg.      45 deg.      90 deg.      45 deg.      90 deg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tethered........................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........           X            X            X            X
Untethered......................................           X            X            X            X            X            X            X            X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twelve of the tests (all of the above) were conducted using a \1/2\ 
sine pulse. The remaining tests were selected repeats from the above 
matrix, but were conducted using the existing FMVSS No. 213 pulse. All 
of these tests were conducted at a test velocity of 32 km/h (20 mph) 
and a peak acceleration of 17 g's. In addition to the amount of dummy 
head excursion, performances with respect to other injury criteria were 
recorded and are summarized in the following table:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 21841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY02.008

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    We are considering a test that would limit head excursion such that 
no portion of the head of the dummy could pass through a vertical plane 
that is

[[Page 21842]]

parallel to the longitudinal plane of the test seat assembly, and 
measured relative to the centerline of the child restraint anchorage 
(LATCH) bar that is furthest from the simulated impact (Point Z1). The 
plane would be 508 millimeters (mm) (20 inches) from Point Z1 in the 
direction toward the side of the simulated impact.
    The 508 mm (20-inch) limit was based on the location of the LATCH 
anchorage bars and the distance we measured from the most inboard 
anchorage bar to the side door structure of a Pontiac Grand Am 
passenger car. The Grand Am was used because it was readily available 
and was thought by the agency to be fairly representative of an average 
size car in the current fleet. (As discussed later in this document, 
comments are requested on the representativeness of the vehicle.) It 
was also based on results from two 90-degree side impact sled tests 
recently conducted by the agency using a 3-year-old-dummy restrained in 
forward-facing LATCH child restraint systems. The head excursion values 
for the dummy in these tests were 19 and 20 inches. (See test numbers 
TRC 595 and TRC 596 in Table 2, supra.) The 20-inch limit appeared to 
be a practicable and reasonable first step toward improving child 
restraint performance in side impacts. While a lower excursion limit 
might have greater potential benefits in reducing the likelihood of 
head impacts against vehicle components even further, not enough was 
known about the availability and efficacy of possible countermeasure to 
support a lower limit. It was unknown how manufacturers would be able 
to meet a lower excursion limit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY02.009

b. Should HIC Be Limited in a 15 mph Dynamic Test With a Rigid Side 
Structure (``Wall Test'')?

    The second test under consideration also involves a simulated 
lateral impact on a sled, but the test would be conducted at 15 mph. 
NHTSA settled on a 15 mph test because head excursion sufficient to 
cause contact with the vehicle interior was found to occur at this 
speed. We also chose a 15 mph test because it is consistent with a 
headform impact test used in Standard No. 201, ``Occupant Protection in 
Interior Impact,'' and in Standard No. 222, ``School Bus Seating and 
Crash Protection,'' to assess the energy-absorption materials used to 
provide head protection in vehicle interiors. Comments are requested as 
to whether the purposes of the tests in each of those standards are 
sufficiently similar to the purposes in this case.
    In this test, we envision the use of a rigid structure that would 
represent the location of a vehicle's side structure, positioned 508 mm 
(20 inches) from Point Z1, adjacent to the child restraint.\4\ The 
structure would essentially be a rigid, flat surface adjacent to the 
seat assembly, extending from the seat cushion to a height of 
approximately 762 mm (30 inches). The height is intended to be high 
enough so that if the dummy's head were to contact the structure, the 
head would contact a flat surface, and not an edge

[[Page 21843]]

or curve. The structure would extend forward a distance of 
approximately 32 inches, again, to ensure that head contact would only 
be with a flat surface. The structure would be unyielding, and would 
not bend or flex when loaded. It would be covered with an aluminum 
plate. Figure 2 of this preamble depicts the rigid structure, aligned 
with the seat assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under this approach, the LATCH anchorages would be moved 
from the center seating position on the test seat assembly to an 
outboard seating position. The rigid structure would be attached 
next to the seat assembly to the same ``floor'' structure to which 
the seat assembly is attached.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY02.010

    In this test, head excursion would not be measured because it 
appears that the presence of the rigid structure would make it 
unnecessary to do so. A head excursion limit is needed when the test 
procedure does not include a surface representing the vehicle interior 
that can be struck during the test. However, in this test procedure, 
there would be a rigid structure that could be struck by the dummy 
directly or indirectly while retained in the child restraint. Limits on 
head and chest acceleration measurements would be measured, to ensure 
that if the structure were struck, the forces to the dummy's head and 
chest would not be excessive. Under this approach, other injury 
criteria limits would also have to be met, such as those relating to 
neck injury and chest deflection.
    The 15-mph test would be conducted with the sled pulse used in the 
agency's side impact test program. (Figure 3 of this preamble depicts 
the pulse we are considering for this test.) The test pulse was derived 
from the crash pulses of the Grand Am when tested under Standard No. 
214 (49 CFR 571.214) (velocity of 15 mph with 21g peak acceleration), 
and in the side impact program of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) 
(21 mph with a 26g peak acceleration). Comments are requested on the 
appropriateness and representativeness of using the pulses of this 
vehicle in these tests.

[[Page 21844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY02.011

    The results of the side impact tests on the Grand Am buck, for the 
near-side dummy only, are presented below in Table 3.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 21845]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01MY02.012

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 21846]]

c. Are Both Tests Needed?

    We have been considering the merits of having child restraints be 
subject to both the 20 mph ``no wall'' and the 15 mph ``rigid wall'' 
tests. We recognize that the tests may be duplicative to an extent, 
since the rigid wall of the 15 mph test would be positioned at the 20-
inch excursion limit of the 20 mph test. Comments are requested 
concerning the duplication, and, if it is believed that there is 
duplication, the extent of the duplication. Which requirement is 
better, or are both needed? Should we consider proposing to subject 
child restraints to a second test requirement only if they fail the 
first test? For instance, if a rear-facing restraint were unable to 
meet the 20-inch excursion limit of the 20 mph test, we could subject 
it to hit the 15 mph rigid wall test and require that the injury 
criteria be met (presumably by additional padding and/or reinforced 
side structure). If it met those criteria, perhaps it should be 
considered to have met the side impact protection requirements. As 
shown in this example, an advantage to the 15 mph test over the 20 mph 
test is that the former allows the development and assessment of a 
broader range of countermeasures for child protection. That is, while 
the 20 mph requirement focuses on better retaining the child's head and 
torso, the 15 mph requirement could allow manufacturers to incorporate 
energy-absorption designs into the child restraint, in addition to 
countermeasures that reduce occupant excursion. Comments are requested 
on such an approach.

IV. Countermeasure Development

    We were not able to engage in any type of countermeasure 
development within the time constraints set by the TREAD Act for an 
NPRM. However, several possible approaches were identified.

a. Countermeasures That Better Retain and Cushion the Child's Head

    The legislative history of the TREAD Act indicated an interest in 
incorporating into Standard No. 213 what was thought to be superior 
European side impact padding requirements. (``Child Passenger Safety 
Act of 2000,'' S. 2070, February 10, 2000). NHTSA reviewed Regulation 
44 and found that it neither prescribes any side impact tests for the 
evaluation of child restraints, nor requires special designs or 
features for enhanced side impact protection, such as deep side 
structures, or ``wings,'' \5\ that differ substantially from the 
requirements of Standard No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The only requirements for ``wings'' in the E.C.E. Regulation 
44 apply to rear-facing child restraints. These restraints must have 
side wings with a depth of minimum 90 mm measured from the median of 
the surface of the backrest. These side wings start at the 
horizontal plan passing through point ``A'' and continue to the top 
of the seat back. Starting from a point 90 mm below the top of the 
seat back, the depth of the side wing may be gradually reduced. 
Child restraints meeting these requirements do not appear 
substantially different in design than convertible restraints 
manufactured to Standard No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the absence of regulatory provisions addressing 
this aspect of performance, NHTSA evaluated U.S. and European child 
restraints to compare their performance in a dynamic side impact 
simulation. The agency ran two series of sled tests using a Pontiac 
Grand Am passenger car test buck, turned 90 degrees to the direction of 
impact. The agency used sled pulses derived from the crash pulses of 
the Grand Am when tested under Standard No. 214 (velocity of 15 mph 
with 21g peak acceleration), and the side impact program of the New Car 
Assessment Program (NCAP) (21 mph with a 26g peak acceleration). In the 
first series of tests to evaluate the performance of current U.S. 
restraints, Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies were positioned in the 
outboard rear seating positions in child restraints that were either a 
Cosco Triad or Touriva, or a Fisher-Price SafeEmbrace or SafeEmbrace 
II. In each test, one child restraint with dummy was on the ``near-
side,'' i.e., same side, as the impact and one child restraint with 
dummy was on the ``far-side.'' In each test, the near-side dummy's head 
contacted the interior door structure, resulting in high injury 
measures. The far-side dummy had minimal interaction with the vehicle 
interior, the near-side dummy or with any other object.
    NHTSA then evaluated the side impact protection capability of child 
restraint systems that were certified to Regulation 44 (seats 
manufactured to European regulations by Britax and by Century). NHTSA 
obtained six child restraints, three each of the Britax King and the 
Century Accel. Visual review of the European seats prior to testing did 
not reveal significant differences in the padding or size of the 
``wings'' between the Regulation 44 and the Standard No. 213 seats. 
Because no instrumented side impact dummy was available for use, the 
agency utilized instrumented Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies, and focused 
its evaluation of the restraints primarily on the kinematic response of 
the dummies. During these tests, one Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy was 
positioned near-side to the impact. Test results indicated that the 
performance of the European restraint systems was not significantly 
different from that of the U.S. child restraints. That is, in each 
case, the near-side test dummy's head went out around the side of the 
child restraint and impacted the door frame of the sled buck. The side 
wings on the European restraint did not contain the head of the dummy 
any better than the U.S. restraints we tested. (The results are 
discussed in detail in a paper entitled, ``Comparison of European and 
U.S. Child Restraints in Lateral Grand Am Sled Tests,'' a copy of which 
is in the docket.)
    This finding of no difference in performance between European and 
U.S. child restraints was relevant to determining the level of 
performance of current child restraint designs, but does not address 
the extent of the manufacturers' capabilities to improve designs to 
provide better protection for a child's head in a side impact. In a 
study that evaluated rearward-facing child restraints in lateral 
impacts, researchers conducting side impact testing of prototype child 
restraints found that ``side protection can be increased by fairly 
simple methods,'' \6\ for example, by providing a reinforced side 
structure that distributes local loads, energy absorbing materials and 
a modified head area that prevents the head from rotating out of the 
confines of the child restraint. Researchers who modified a child 
restraint to incorporate these features found that the restraint was 
able to retain the head of a 3-year-old test dummy in a lateral 50-
kilometer per hour (km/h) dynamic test. Id. Researchers from the RTA of 
NSW, Australia, found head strikes could be prevented in 90-degree 
tests depending, in part, on the depth of the side wings.\7\ This 
research indicates that countermeasure work could be promising. 
However, because NHTSA has not been able to satisfactorily consider and 
evaluate possible countermeasures for side impact protection, we have 
decided against proceeding with an NPRM at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Kamren et al., ``Side Protection and Child Restraints--
Accident Data and Laboratory Test Including New Test Methods,'' 13th 
International Technical Conference of Experimental Safety Vehicles, 
November 4-7, 1991, Paris, France.
    \7\ Kelly et al., ``Child Restraint Performance in Side Impacts 
With and Without Top Tethers and With and Without Rigid Attachment 
(CANFIX),'' 1995 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics 
of Impact, September 13-16, 1995, Brunnen, Switzerland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will be undertaking a research plan later in 2002 to evaluate 
possible countermeasures that may

[[Page 21847]]

enable rear-facing infant seats to better retain the child's head in a 
side impact. The agency hopes to assess whether potential 
countermeasures such as increased padding and/or depth of the side 
wings on these restraints could have a positive effect in limiting the 
head excursion of a restrained dummy. The results of this research will 
help shape the agency's future work on side impact protection.

b. Countermeasures That Keep the Child Restraint From Moving Laterally 
in a Side Impact

    Another countermeasure that might provide side impact benefits is 
one that keeps the child restraint from moving laterally in the side 
impact, such as the use of rigid instead of flexible means for 
attaching a child restraint to the Standard No. 225 LATCH system. RTA 
of NSW, Australia, conducted dynamic side impact sled tests and found 
that a child restraint with rigid means of being attached to a LATCH 
system outperformed a child restraint restrained by a flexible 
attachment system and a lap belt plus tether system. Kelly et al., 
``Comparative Side Impact Testing of Child Restraint Anchorage 
Systems,'' Special Report 96/100, March 1997.\8\ The side impact tests 
were conducted in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 3691.1, 
except for the addition of a simulated door structure, replicating a 
rear door of a large sedan, adjacent to the test seat. Testing was 
conducted at 32 km/hr and 14 g, with the test seat mounted at both 90 
degrees and 45 degrees to the direction of sled travel. The lower 
anchorage points for the CAUSFIX (LATCH) system were positioned 280 mm 
(11 inches) apart on the test seat structure, with the inboard 
anchorage approximately 610 mm (24 inches) from the inner surface of 
the door. An instrumented 9-month-old dummy was used in all the tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ (RTA refers to the LATCH system as the CAUSFIX system, 
because ``LATCH'' was a term developed subsequent to the RTA study, 
primarily by U.S. manufactures and retailers for a U.S. audience. 
Further, at the time of the RTA study, the rigid lower bars and top 
tether anchorage design of LATCH was then under development by 
Canada and Australia.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RTA found that, for forward-facing seats, only the rigid-to-rigid 
CAUSFIX (LATCH) attachment system was able to prevent contact between 
either the dummy's head or the child restraint and the door structure 
in the 90-degree test. RTA stated that head contact with the door was 
evident in the test involving the flexible attachment system, largely 
due to the restraint's rotating towards the door at the end of its 
sideway movement.

    As a consequence, the dummy's head moved forward relative to the 
CRS [child restraint system] and contacted the front portion of the 
side-wing. In turn, the side-wing deflected and allowed the head to 
roll around its front edge, as the CRS rebounded from the door. The 
HIC values shown * * * indicate only light head contact with the 
door. In contrast, the CAUSFIX system did not allow rotation* * * * 
The CAUSFIX concept offered better head protection compared to the 
conventional seat belt/top tether systems. (Id., page 5.)

    Comments are requested on these findings. In 1999, NHTSA required 
the LATCH (or CAUSFIX) system to be installed on new passenger vehicles 
(64 FR 10786; March 5, 1999). NHTSA required child restraints to be 
equipped with attachments that connect to the vehicle LATCH system 
beginning in 2002, but allowed manufacturers to decide what type of 
connecters to use on their child restraints. The agency did not require 
that rigid connectors be used because, among other reasons, we lacked 
data to confirm whether use of rigid attachments on a child restraint 
would produce the side impact benefits reported by RTA. There was also 
a concern that rigid connectors would raise the price of child 
restraints inordinately. (Rigid connectors are estimated to add about 
$25 to the price of a child restraint.) Without evidence of a clear 
benefit in having rigid attachments, and in view of the potential price 
of child restraints with rigid attachment systems and the leadtime 
necessary for their development, NHTSA decided against mandating that 
type of connector.\9\ In the event that the rigid attachment system 
with top tether is capable of preventing the dummy's head from striking 
the side of the vehicle, how should the agency balance that capability 
against the impact of possible cost increases on the use of child 
restraints in deciding whether to propose mandating a performance 
requirement that can be met only by rigid attachments at this time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ At present, we are not aware of any child restraint system 
that has rigid attachments that is available in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another possible countermeasure that the agency considered to 
prevent movement of the child restraint toward the vehicle side 
structure is tethering the bottom of a child restraint to the vehicle 
floor. Comments are requested on the effectiveness of this approach. 
Consumer acceptability of this approach is not known at this time.

c. Countermeasures That Reduce the Local Stiffness of Vehicle 
Components Areas Where Children Are Most Likely To Hit Their Heads

    It may be that the best way of developing countermeasures that 
would be effective in protecting children in child restraints on the 
near side of a side impact would be to consider the child restraint and 
the vehicle as parts of a single system. Standard No. 201 is intended 
to provide impact protection in various crash modes, including side 
impact crashes, while Standard No. 214 focuses on side impact crashes. 
Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 
571.201), requires passenger vehicles to provide protection when an 
occupant's head strikes certain portions of target components, such as 
pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof. The components are 
subjected to in-vehicle component tests with a headform, and must limit 
HIC to 1000. The standard could be expanded to apply to the areas of 
the vehicle interior that are identified as likely to be struck by a 
child's head in a side impact crash. However, our data files do not 
clearly identify where head strikes are occurring in vehicles. Since 
significant work would have to be done to identify the appropriate 
target areas and assess suitable countermeasures, this approach was not 
considered responsive to the TREAD Act, given its time limitations.
    Another potential countermeasure to reduce the local stiffness of 
vehicle side structures would be side impact air bags (SIABs). The 
agency has done considerable research on SIABs.\10\ A crucial part of 
the agency's current research concerns their effectiveness, cost, and 
any possible harmful effects for in-position and out-of-position 
occupants. Despite the agency's research to date on SIABs, the agency 
did not consider SIABs as a countermeasure because of the time 
limitations of TREAD. However, comments on the potential effectiveness 
of this approach and suggestions on specific target locations are 
requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Prasad et al., ``Evaluation of Injury Risk from Side Impact 
Air Bags,'' 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced 
Safety of Vehicles, June 4-7, 2001, Amsterdam, Netherlands. This 
paper describes NHTSA's program for evaluation of side air bag 
systems for out-of-position occupants and provides a status report 
on the current research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Specific Issues on Side Impact on Which Comments Are Requested

    There are a number of issues on which comments would be helpful in 
shaping NHTSA's decision in this rulemaking.

[[Page 21848]]

a. Crash Characteristics

    The agency has been hampered by a lack of specific accident data on 
children in side impact crashes. There are few available data on how 
children are being injured and killed in side impacts (e.g., to what 
degree injuries are caused by intrusion of an impacting vehicle or 
other object). Using 1999 FARS data, 55 percent of the 91 children 
between the ages of 0 and 12 that were killed in side impact crashes 
while restrained in child restraints were seated on the side nearest to 
the crash, with the remaining fatal injuries evenly distributed in 
middle and far-side seating positions. Is there any evidence that 
injuries and fatalities occur more often in compartment impacts than in 
non-compartment impacts? Is there additional information available to 
distinguish the contact location (vehicle or child restraint system) 
causing the most severe injury(ies)?

b. Child Injury Mechanisms

    Given the agency's limited information regarding the side impact 
crash characteristics, it is similarly difficult to identify the 
specific injury mechanisms in children in these crashes. NHTSA 
researchers have opined that in the absence of autopsies, neck injuries 
may sometimes occur but be recorded as head injuries. What evidence is 
there that neck injuries may occur to CRS occupants in side impact 
crashes? What head injury mechanisms occur? Are they focal point 
injuries due to direct contact, or do they tend to be diffuse injuries 
resulting from inertial loadings? Are there other serious and fatal 
injury mechanisms occurring to children in side impact collisions when 
they are restrained in a CRS?

c. Test Procedures

1. Are the Approaches Reasonable?
    We request comments on all aspects of the test procedures, 
including general methodology; sled test orientation; test speed and 
pulse; and positioning of the rigid structure (Wall Test). Should LATCH 
be the sole means of attaching a child restraint for the purposes of 
testing? (Currently, the LATCH anchorages are in the center seating 
position on the standard seat assembly described in Standard No. 213. 
We would consider moving the LATCH anchorages to an outboard seating 
position.) All passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2002 will be equipped with LATCH systems, and all child restraints 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 will have components that 
attach to the LATCH anchors in vehicles. However, it will be years 
before the LATCH-equipped vehicles replace the vehicles on the road 
today. Given these considerations, comments are requested on whether 
child restraints should also be required to meet the side impact 
performance requirements when attached to the standard seat assembly by 
a lap and shoulder belt (and top tether). What practicability problems, 
if any, would be associated with achieving compliance while using the 
latter type of attachment?
    Comments are requested from manufacturers and researchers as to how 
they have sought to better protect children in side impacts. To what 
extent have manufacturers considered side impact protection in 
designing child restraints and vehicles? What measures have been used 
thus far in child restraint and vehicle designs to improve side impact 
performance to children?
2. ISO
    The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has 
embarked on what has become a comprehensive, long-term endeavor to 
develop a dynamic side impact test procedure.\11\ NHTSA has been 
monitoring that undertaking. Currently, the Working Group has developed 
a draft side impact test method that addresses ``near side'' impact 
conditions. A copy of the draft test method has been placed in the 
docket. The Working Group will address non-struck side test 
requirements at a later date. The draft standard has been developed 
through consideration of a progression of tests from full-scale vehicle 
impacts to a sled with a hinged door. In the latter procedure, the 
intruding door is represented by a pivoted door structure that is 
rotated in relation to the test seat, at a relative velocity within a 
band of velocities measured in full-scale tests. The movement 
represents the deformation of the door inner panel relative to the rear 
seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The International Organization for Standardization working 
group ISO TC22/SC12/WG1, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' has declared 
that the risk of side impacts to children in cars is an important 
working item, and established an ad-hoc group in 1993 to analyze 
this area. The ad-hoc group noted that, ``From different accident 
research units, it was reported that critical or fatal injuries of 
child restraint-protected children in side collisions show about the 
same importance as in frontal collisions.'' Therefore, the ISO 
working group noted that there is an interest in evaluating the risk 
of injuries to children in side impacts and in analyzing the side 
impact performance of child restraint systems. The ISO working group 
was given the task of developing an international standard of 
uniform test criteria for such evaluation. This work remains ongoing 
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During a side impact collision, the compartment undergoes a lateral 
acceleration and velocity change of the chassis. Furthermore, if a 
compartment strike occurs, the struck side of that vehicle may intrude 
rapidly into the passenger compartment, impacting occupants seated on 
the struck side adjacent to the impact. With respect to a child 
restraint, the chassis acceleration affects the reaction of the 
anchorages and the inertial displacement of the child restraint system, 
while the side intrusion affects the direct loading on the child 
restraint system.
    This complex interaction cannot be replicated entirely in a simple 
sled test procedure. For the draft ISO test procedure, the chassis 
acceleration and door intrusion have been specified independently. The 
chassis acceleration is reproduced by the sled deceleration. The door 
intrusion is simulated by the motion of a hinged door mounted on the 
sled. An alternative method using a non-hinged door has also been 
evaluated. For the evaluation of the performance of a child restraint 
system on the non-struck side, only the chassis (sled) acceleration is 
relevant.
    The ISO Working Group has recognized that, although a test method 
and installation procedure has been developed, there are no dummies 
available at the present time whose construction is designed for side 
impact validation. Accordingly, the Working Group will conduct method 
validation tests using dummies recognized as being of limited 
capability until new dummies are available. Such validation will be 
conducted in Europe using modified P series dummies.
    The ISO working group's draft side impact test method has been 
circulated within the group for review and comment. However, given the 
lack of an approved test device, and corresponding injury criteria, a 
final version of an ISO test procedure is not expected in the near 
future. The level and amount of effort needed to further develop and 
validate the ISO side impact test procedure far exceeds what can be 
accomplished within the time constraints of the TREAD Act. It is not 
known when ISO will adopt the draft standard for a dynamic side impact 
test procedure.
    Comments are requested on whether the ISO procedure would be 
appropriate for Standard No. 213. Should NHTSA wait for ISO to finalize 
it before proceeding with a proposal for side impact protection?

d. Performance Requirements

    We are contemplating side impact requirements that would generally 
consist of the same limits on injury criteria as those proposed in the 
NPRM

[[Page 21849]]

published today for inclusion in Standard No. 213 for the frontal 
impact test. We would limit the forces that are imposed on a dummy's 
head in the side impact tests by specifying the head injury criteria 
(HIC) proposed in the pending NPRM on this subject 
(HIC15570, when testing with the 3-year-old dummy, and 
HIC15390, when testing with the CRABI 12-month-old). The 
purpose of the HIC limits in the No Wall and Wall Tests would be to 
ensure that (a) the dummy's head would be retained within the child 
restraint and (b) the child restraint structure surrounding the head 
would not transfer harmful loads from restraint-to-door impacts to the 
child, or would not contain stiff components.
    We are considering the merits of using the same neck injury 
criteria in the side impact tests that are being proposed for frontal 
compliance tests of child restraints. Results from the limited testing 
that we have conducted show that, although difficult, existing child 
restraint designs may meet the specified neck injury parameters. 
Comments are requested on whether reducing head excursions could result 
in increased neck loading. Comments are also sought on the ability of 
deep wings to reduce injury. Would the enlarged side structure 
sufficiently retain the head within the shell of the child restraint 
system? If not, under what impact conditions might the head not be 
retained? In those cases in which the head would not be retained, would 
there be any potential for increased neck injury due to side wings?
    We are considering a head excursion limit of 508 mm (20 inches) 
from the centerline of the child restraint anchorage (LATCH) bar that 
is furthest from the simulated impact (Point Z1). The 508 mm (20-inch) 
limit was based, in part, on the location of the LATCH anchorage bars 
and the distance we measured from the most inboard anchorage bar to the 
side door structure of a Pontiac Grand Am passenger car. Comments are 
requested on the reasonableness of basing the limit on the Grand Am 
interior. How representative is the Grand Am of passenger vehicles? 
Would the distance in smaller vehicles be significantly less? Would the 
20-inch limit be sufficient to provide safety in vehicles with a 
smaller interior than the Grand Am (smaller distance between LATCH 
anchorage bar to the side door structure)? The 20-inch limit was also 
based on the results from two 90-degree side impact sled tests using a 
3-year-old-dummy restrained in forward-facing LATCH child restraint 
systems. The head excursion values for the dummy in these tests were 19 
and 20 inches. Comments are requested on the practicability of a head 
excursion requirement less than 20 inches. Is there a practicable way 
of meeting a more stringent head excursion requirement in vehicles 
smaller than the Grand Am? Should a head excursion limit also be based 
on the potential for side structure intrusion in a side impact? 
Intruding side structure would reduce the amount of available space in 
a side impact. Comments are requested on how intrusion should be 
accounted for in setting an excursion limit and the practicability of 
meeting such a limit.

e. Test Dummies

    We are considering the use of the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-year-old 
dummies to test child restraints. We are mindful that there is some 
question whether these dummies are appropriate for use in side impact 
testing. The Hybrid III 3-year-old has a shoulder and torso that are 
stiffer than the human's in the lateral direction, and probably would 
not fully replicate a child's kinematics in a side impact. The agency 
and the biomechanical community are developing more advanced side 
impact dummies, such as the Q series 3-year-old (Q3) test dummy, which 
is the product of a European dummy manufacturer. However, the Q3 dummy 
has yet to show whether it will prove to be suitable for lateral child 
restraint testing.
    We have also conducted preliminary evaluations of prototype neck 
designs with side impact capabilities for the Hybrid III 3-year-old 
dummy. During the limited series of side impact tests conducted by the 
agency at the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC), the dummy 
appeared to rotate toward the point of impact in each case to yield a 
generally frontal kinematic response. The shoulder structure for 
adults--and its relevance to kinematic response--is not currently fully 
understood by the biomechanical community, let alone the shoulder 
structure for a child. Yet, given the initial forward rotation of the 
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy in a lateral test, it is possible that the 
shoulder would have little influence on the overall kinematic response 
of the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy in the side impact tests under 
consideration. Comments are requested on whether the existing Hybrid 
III 3-year-old is the best available dummy and sufficient for use in 
side impact testing. Has any dynamic side impact testing been performed 
with the CRABI, Hybrid III, Q- or P-series dummies? What problems, if 
any, have been experienced in testing with the P-series European dummy? 
What is the suitability of the P-series dummy relative to the Hybrid 
III and Q-series dummies?

f. Design Restriction

    Comments are also requested on the appropriateness of proposing to 
amend Standard No. 213 to specify a particular design for child 
restraints, instead of a dynamic test requirement. For example, should 
S5.2.2.1(b) mandate side wings on child restraints and increase the 
height of the wings above the current requirement? We recognize that 
that approach would be more design restrictive and would not allow 
manufacturers the leeway to develop alternative designs that might 
better enhance safety and public acceptability. Would it be 
unnecessarily design restrictive? Further, at this point, we do not 
know how high the wings would need to be to retain the head in a 
dynamic environment. How high would they need to be?
    Comments are also requested on whether, in lieu of a dynamic test 
requirement, we should propose specifying the type and amount of 
improved energy-absorbing material that should be used around the head 
area of the restrained child. What type of material should be 
specified? Would that approach be unnecessarily design restrictive? 
Would the addition of padding increase neck injuries by allowing 
pocketing of the head and thereby generating increased neck loads?

g. Consumer Acceptance

    Comments are requested on the reduced ease of use of restraints 
that would have deep side wings. Deep side wings may make it somewhat 
more difficult to place a child in the restraint, especially an infant. 
Would the larger side structure make it significantly harder for 
parents to move children (especially infants) in and out of the 
restraint, or make it significantly more difficult to install the 
restraint in the vehicle? Would the larger side structure substantially 
reduce the ability of restrained children to see out of the restraint? 
Would increased inconvenience or lack of visibility lead to any 
significantly reduced use of the restraint? Are there advanced 
materials that could overcome these problems?
    Comments are also requested on consumers' sensitivity to changes in 
the price of restraints. Is consumer demand sufficiently sensitive to 
new child restraint prices such that an increase in the price of a 
child restraint could lead to a decrease in demand for child 
restraints, notwithstanding that each of the States and the District of 
Columbia require the use of child restraints in

[[Page 21850]]

motor vehicles? If so, could the resulting changes in child restraint 
usage partially or totally offset the benefits of a side impact 
protection rule? Would higher prices lead consumers generally to decide 
to use older model child restraints instead of purchasing new models? 
Would a cost increase result in fewer restraints being purchased for 
giveaway and loaner programs?

h. Potentially Affected Child Restraints

    As to the possible application of the side impact protection 
requirements, we are considering only restraints recommended for 
children up to 40 lb. Comments are requested as to whether tethered 
convertible restraints with impact shields could meet side impact 
performance requirements.
    Comments are also requested on applying side impact requirements to 
booster seats. Booster seats, as currently designed, are unlikely to be 
able to meet the requirements under consideration because, to fit older 
children, they typically have little or no side structure. (Side 
structure modification is one of the ways we anticipate manufacturers 
would be able to meet a side impact test requirement.) Booster seats 
also are not subject to the requirement in Standard No. 213 that makes 
it necessary for child restraints to have a tether, since they do not 
pose the same problems of compatibility with the vehicle as do the 
restraints for younger children, which have to be installed by the 
vehicle belt system. Yet, older children could benefit from improved 
side impact protection. A tether could be added relatively easily, but 
side structure might cause the restraints to be too large and bulky for 
use. Further, S5.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 effectively limits the mass of 
current booster seats to 4.4 kg. Addition of a side structure would 
likely cause most existing booster designs to exceed this limit. There 
are a number of combination toddler/belt-positioning booster seats on 
the market. When used with younger children, these restraints have a 
full harness system for the child and attach to the vehicle seat by way 
of the vehicle's belt system or LATCH system. When the child grows to a 
certain size (typically over 40 lb), parents are instructed to remove 
the harness and to use the child restraint system as a belt-positioning 
booster. Because these restraints are used as booster seats when the 
child is over 40 lb, and since side structure on this type of restraint 
could impede its use as a booster seat, should these seats be excluded 
from a proposed side impact requirement? Should booster seat occupants 
rely on the vehicle structure for side impact protection, as do adult 
occupants? How could side impact protection best be improved for 
children in booster seats?

i. Potential Cost

    At this time, the agency has insufficient information about the 
particular methods of compliance (``countermeasures'') and their costs. 
The agency is uncertain what countermeasures manufacturers might use to 
meet the possible side impact requirements under consideration.
    The estimated costs to comply with the contemplated side impact 
requirements vary, depending on the countermeasure used. For some 
infant restraints, the addition of one-inch thick padding could be 
sufficient to meet the requirements (the estimated additional cost per 
restraint is $2.50.) The total cost of this countermeasure for those 
restraints is estimated to be $1.750 million. For some forward-facing 
toddler restraints, the sides (wings) on the top portion of the 
restraint might be increased to prevent a child's head from passing the 
sides and contacting the vehicle side structure. We estimate that the 
larger sides and padding would add about $15.00 to the cost of a 
convertible child restraint (one that is used rear-facing with an 
infant and forward-facing with a toddler). A convertible child 
restraint now typically costs about $70.00. We estimate the total cost 
of the enlarged wings countermeasure to be $49.5 million.
    Tethering the bottom of a forward-facing restraint to an anchor on 
the floor of the vehicle to impede the ability of the child restraint 
to rotate toward the side impact is estimated to cost $4.14 per child 
restraint, and $1.40 per vehicle (for two anchors). The total cost of 
the tether countermeasure is estimated to be $38.3 million.
    Another possible countermeasure could be to use rigid components on 
child restraints for attaching them to the lower anchorage bars of a 
vehicle's child restraint anchorage system. We estimate that this 
countermeasure would add $25.15 per child restraint, for a total cost 
of $100.6 million.
    The agency requests comments on these and other possible 
countermeasures. Given that some child restraints could meet the side 
excursion and injury limits in one test mode, and that child restraint 
manufacturers have never had to design for a side impact test, it is 
possible that relatively minor changes in design, without significant 
changes in the child restraints, could allow some manufacturers to pass 
the tests. We have not evaluated the countermeasures to determine their 
feasibility and benefit, although we will evaluate the increased 
padding and enlarged wings approaches in 2002, for rear-facing 
restraints. Information from that study will help us further evaluate 
the course of action we should pursue in this rulemaking.
    NHTSA requests comments on the effect of additional costs on the 
number of restraint producers and on competition. The child restraint 
industry is a very fluid industry; manufacturers are continuously 
entering and leaving it for a variety of reasons. Would an increase in 
child restraint prices affect the viability of any of these 
manufacturers if the profit margins were reduced? If so, would the 
number of manufacturers decrease, and as a result, cause the 
competition in this market to decrease? Do retailers tend to dictate 
the wholesale end of this market by requiring that they be provided 
child restraints in specified price ranges? If so, would an increase in 
the cost of child restraints to the manufacturers result in reduced 
profit margins?

j. Potential Benefits

    In 1999, 420 of the 1,317 children (about 32 percent) between the 
ages of 0 to 12 killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in side 
impacts. Of these children, 91 were killed while restrained in child 
restraints. Children seated on the side nearest to the crash accounted 
for 55 percent of the fatalities. Children seated in a middle seating 
position, or on the far-side, accounted for 23 and 22 percent, 
respectively. We believe that limiting head excursion of the dummy in 
dynamic testing would result in fewer head impacts against the vehicle 
side structure in a side impact, and, correspondingly, fewer injuries 
and fatalities. Further, limiting head and chest acceleration would 
require better energy attenuation by the child restraint in a side 
impact, which could reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from 
impacts of the child's head against the child restraint side structure. 
However, it is difficult to quantify that reduction. We do not know 
whether the possible countermeasures we have identified are feasible or 
effective. Further, we do not know enough about how children are dying 
and getting injured in side impacts. Forty-five percent of the total 
fatalities for children who are in child restraints in side impact 
crashes occur when the child is seated in either the middle or far side 
(non-impacted side) seating positions. Would limiting the lateral 
excursion for these occupants result in improved protection? Comments 
are requested on these issues.

[[Page 21851]]

VII. Rear Impact Protection

    Data from FARS for 1991-2000 show that 9580 passenger vehicle 
occupants between the ages of 0 and 8 years old were fatally injured. 
Of these, 662 (6.9 percent) were killed in rear impact crashes, while 
3536 (36.9 percent) were killed in frontal crashes and 2759 (28.8 
percent) were killed in side impact crashes. Of the 662 children killed 
in rear impact crashes between 1991-2000, 214 were restrained in a 
child restraint; 128 were restrained with a lap or lap/shoulder belt; 
266 were unrestrained and 54 were of other or unknown restraint use. 
Further, of the 104 children under the age of 1 that were killed during 
this time period, 60 were in child restraints, 2 were in lap or lap/
shoulder belts, 38 were unrestrained, and 4 were of other or unknown 
restraint use.
    The breakdown of restraint use for children under the age of 1 is 
provided to identify the possible benefits associated with establishing 
a rear impact test for rear-facing restraints in FMVSS No. 213 which 
would be similar to that which is conducted under the European 
Regulation R44. In the European test, rear-facing restraints are 
subjected to a rear impact test conducted at 30 km/hr (18.6 mph), with 
peak deceleration between 14 g and 21 g over a 70 msec time period. 
Limits on the amount of allowable head excursion during the dynamic 
test are specified.
    During recent dynamic sled testing in support of FMVSS No. 202 and 
FMVSS No. 207 research, a rear-facing child restraint with the CRABI 
12-month-old dummy was added to three different tests. The tests were 
conducted using a 1999 Dodge Intrepid vehicle buck. An Evenflo On My 
Way child restraint, with the attached base, was positioned in the rear 
seat of the vehicle for each test. One test, simulating a dynamic FMVSS 
No. 202 condition, was conducted at approximately 17.5 km/h (11 mph). 
The other two tests were conducted at approximately 30.5 km/h (19 mph). 
Regardless of simulated impact speed, the CRABI 12-month-old in the 
rear-facing child restraint was able to easily meet the injury criteria 
that are proposed under FMVSS No. 208; however, compliance with the ECE 
Regulation R44 requirements were not verified.
    Given the results of the above testing, in conjunction with the 
data showing that fatalities for children as a result of rear impact 
crashes constitute a much smaller percentage of the total than other 
crash modes, the agency is not certain whether the establishment of a 
rear impact test for rear-facing restraints is warranted. Is there any 
test data that would support the establishment of a test that would 
parallel the existing European requirement? Would existing restraints 
be able to meet the requirements with no modifications? If so, does it 
make sense to require the test as part of FMVSS No. 213? Are there 
particular requirements of ECE Regulation R44 for rear-facing child 
restraints in rear impacts that should be given greater consideration?

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this ANPRM under Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures and determined that it is ``significant'' 
because one means of meeting a dynamic side impact requirement could 
result in costs over $100 million and could therefore be economically 
significant under E.O. 12866, i.e., have an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more.\12\ This document was reviewed by OMB 
under E.O. 12866. At this point, NHTSA wants more information about the 
costs and benefits of this rulemaking before it will decide to issue a 
proposal that would be economically significant under E.O. 12866. A 
Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) discussing the costs and benefits 
of the ANPRM is available from the docket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This could be the case if the countermeasure involved using 
rigid components on child restraints that attach to the vehicle's 
rigid LATCH child restraint anchorage system.
    \13\ NHTSA's Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) discusses 
issues relating to the potential costs, benefits and other impacts 
of this regulatory action. The PEA is available in the docket for 
this rule and may be obtained by contacting Docket Management at the 
address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this 
document. You may also read the document via the Internet, by 
following the instructions in the section below entitled, ``Viewing 
Docket Submissions.'' The PEA will be listed in the docket summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the PEA, the agency is uncertain at this time what 
countermeasures manufacturers would use to meet side impact 
requirements. We believe that the side impact tests under consideration 
could improve the protection afforded to children involved in side 
impact. In 1999, about 32 percent of the 1,317 children between the 
ages of 0 to 12 killed in motor vehicle crashes were in side impacts. 
Of these children, 91 were killed while restrained in child restraints. 
Children seated on the side nearest to the crash accounted for 55 
percent of the fatalities. Children seated in a middle seating 
position, or on the far-side, accounted for 23 and 22 percent, 
respectively. Limiting head excursion of the dummy in dynamic testing 
could result in fewer head impacts against the vehicle side structure 
in a side impact, and, correspondingly, fewer injuries and fatalities. 
Limiting head and chest acceleration could lead to better energy 
attenuation by the child restraint in a side impact, which might reduce 
fatalities and injuries resulting from impacts of the child's head 
against the child restraint side structure. Given certain assumptions, 
the side impact tests under consideration could prevent 14 fatalities 
and 55 injuries annually.
    The tests under consideration may only partially address the harm 
resulting from near-side (impacted side) crashes. However, comments are 
requested on whether benefits may result in some side impacts with 
lower degrees of intrusion (e.g., lower speed crashes), because limits 
on head excursion and injury reference values may prevent children's 
heads from striking the vehicle side structure in such crashes, when 
head contact might have otherwise occurred in the absence of an 
excursion limit, or might attenuate crash forces on the child in lower 
speed crashes. Comments are also requested on whether limiting lateral 
head excursion and/or HIC may benefit children who are in child 
restraints seated in either the middle or far side (non-impacted side) 
seating positions.
    The estimated costs to meet the side impact tests under 
consideration vary, depending on the countermeasures used. For some 
infant restraints, the addition of one-inch thick padding could be 
sufficient (the estimated cost per restraint is $2.50.) The total cost 
of this countermeasure is estimated to be $1.750 million. For some 
forward-facing toddler restraints, the sides (wings) on the top portion 
of the restraint might be increased to prevent a child's head from 
passing the sides and contacting the vehicle side structure. Larger 
sides and padding are estimated to add about $15.00 to the cost of a 
convertible child restraint (one that is used rear-facing with an 
infant and forward-facing with a toddler). A convertible child 
restraint now typically costs about $70.00. The total cost of the 
enlarged wings countermeasure is estimated to be $49.5 million. A third 
possible countermeasure involves impeding the ability of the child 
restraint to rotate toward the side impact. Tethering the bottom of a 
forward-facing restraint to an anchor on the floor of the vehicle might 
achieve this result. The cost of such a countermeasure is estimated to 
be $4.14 per child restraint, and $1.40

[[Page 21852]]

per vehicle (for two anchors). The total cost of the tether 
countermeasure is estimated to be $38.3 million. Another possible 
countermeasure could be to use rigid attachment components on child 
restraints that attach to the lower anchorage bars of a vehicle's child 
restraint anchorage system. This countermeasure is estimated to add 
$25.15 per child restraint, for a total cost of $100.6 million. NHTSA 
wants more information about the costs and benefits of this ANPRM 
before it will decide to issue a proposal that would be economically 
significant under E.O. 12866.
    The agency requests comments on these and other possible 
countermeasures. The countermeasures have not been evaluated to 
determine their feasibility and benefit, although NHTSA will evaluate 
potential countermeasures in 2002, for rear-facing restraints. 
Information from that study will help us further evaluate the course of 
action the agency should pursue in this rulemaking.

IX. Submission of Comments

How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Rulemaking?

    In developing this ANPRM, we tried to address the concerns of all 
our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rulemaking. 
We invite you to provide different views on options we discuss, new 
approaches we have not considered, new data, descriptions of how this 
ANPRM may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your 
views on all aspects of this ANPRM, but request comments on specific 
issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most effective 
if you follow the suggestions below:

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

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

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

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

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

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2001-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. 
Upon receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will return the 
postcard by mail.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and Pub. L. 
106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on April 24, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-10506 Filed 4-25-02; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P