[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67448-67490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27997]



[[Page 67447]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



Consumer Information Regulations; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards; Safety Rating Program for Child Restraint Systems; Notice 
and Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 67448]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-10053]


Consumer Information Regulations; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards; Safety Rating Program for Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Response to Comments, Notice of Final Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act requires that, by November 2002, a safety 
rating for child restraints be established to create a consumer 
information program to provide practicable, readily understandable, and 
timely information to consumers. Consumers could use the information to 
make informed decisions on the purchase of child restraint systems 
(CRS). In addition, TREAD directed the Secretary of Transportation to 
take into consideration, ``whether to include a child restraint in each 
vehicle crash-tested under the New Car Assessment Program.'' In 
response to this mandate, the agency has decided to establish a 
consumer information program for add on child restraints based on ease 
of use. We believe that this consumer information program will 
encourage child restraint manufacturers to produce child restraints 
with features that make it easier for consumers to use and install, 
thereby, leading to increased correct use of child restraints and 
increased safety for child passengers. In addition, we have decided to 
perform two pilot programs to gather additional information about two 
other aspects of child passenger safety. One pilot program will subject 
child restraints to a 48 kmph (30 mph) sled test under the same test 
conditions as a proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. 213. The second pilot 
program will continue to include child restraints in the frontal 
crashes of our New Car Assessment Program. In 2003 and 2004, the agency 
will collect results from the vehicle tests and from the child 
restraint 30 mph (48 kmph) dynamic sled tests, as a pilot program, and 
not publish the results as consumer information. At the conclusion of 
the pilot program, and if analyses of the pilot program show this would 
be meaningful consumer information, the agency will seek public 
comments on a proposal for full implementation of the rating of 
vehicles for child protection and the dynamic child restraint test to 
commence in Model Year 2005. (By Model Year 2005, we mean October 2004 
to coincide with the commencement of the fiscal year 2005 New Car 
Assessment Program.) We believe this consumer information will enable 
prospective purchasers to make better, informed choices about new child 
restraints and passenger vehicles.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning issues related to the 
dynamic performance pilot program of the CRS, call Nathaniel Beuse of 
the New Car Assessment Program. For issues concerning the passenger 
vehicles pilot program, call Brian Park of the New Car Assessment 
Program. Both of these individuals can be reached at (202)-366-1740. 
For issues related to the ease of use rating, you may call Lori Miller 
of the Office of Planning and Consumer Standards at (202)-366-2191. You 
may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
II. Discussion of General Issues Raised by Commenters
    A. Major Safety Problem is the Unrestrained Child
    B. The Belief that Retailers Might Eliminate Lower-Priced Child 
Restraints
III. CRS Ease of Use Rating Program
    A. Summary of Proposal
    B. Summary of Comments
    1. Inclusion of LATCH
    2. Forms for Each Type of Restraint
    3. Features and Feature Criteria Evaluation
    4. Weighting the Features
    5. Low Cost Seats
    6. Subjectivity of Ease of Use Rating
    7. Other Comments
    C. Focus Group Testing on Proposed Child Restraint Rating 
Program
    D. Responses to Comments and Final Ease of Use Rating Program
    1. LATCH
    2. Forms for Each Type of Restraint
    3. Features and Feature Criteria Evaluation
    4. Weighting the Features
    5. Low Cost Seats and Repeatability/Subjectivity
    6. Other Comments
    7. Summary of Final Ease of Use Protocol
IV. CRS Dynamic Performance Rating Program
    A. Summary of Proposal
    B. Summary of Comments
    1. 48 kmph (30 mph) Sled Test
    2. 56 kmph (35 mph) Sled Test
    3. Test Dummies and Injury Assessment Reference Values
    4. Testing Procedure
    5. Rating System
    C. Analysis of Comments
    1. 48 kmph (30 mph) Sled Test
    2. 56 kmph (35 mph) Sled Test
    3. Test Dummies and Injury Assessment Reference Values
    4. Testing Procedure
    5. Rating System
    D. NHTSA's Decision On A CRS Dynamic Rating Program
V. Vehicle Rating System for Child Protection
    A. Summary of Proposal
    B. Summary of Comments
    C. Analysis of Comments
    D. NHTSA's Decision On A Vehicle Rating System for Child 
Protection
VI. Combined Child Restraint Rating
    A. Summary of Proposal
    B. Summary of Comments
    C. NHTSA Will Not Combine Ratings
VII. Distribution & Schedule
    A. Summary of Proposal
    B. Summary of Comments
    C. Rating and Distribution Plan
VIII. Conclusion
Appendices
    A. Proposed Ease of Use Rating Forms
    B. Proposed Ease of Use Rating Sample
    C. Final Ease of Use Rating and Scoring Forms
    D. Final Ease of Use Rating Sample

I. Introduction

    Congress has directed the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) to develop a child restraint safety rating 
system that is practicable and understandable (Section 14(g) of the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act, November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) and 
that will help consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing 
child restraints. Section 14(g) reads as follows:
    (g) Child restraint safety rating program. No later than 12 months 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish 
a child restraint safety rating consumer information program to provide 
practicable, readily understandable, and timely information to 
consumers for use in making informed decisions in the purchase of child 
restraints. No later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of 
this Act the Secretary shall issue a final rule establishing a child 
restraint safety rating program and providing other consumer 
information, which the Secretary determines, would be useful to 
consumers who purchase child restraint systems.
    This notice outlines the program that NHTSA will use to incorporate 
a new safety rating for child restraint systems. The agency will rate 
child restraints in 2003 for ease of use. In addition, we have decided 
to conduct two pilot

[[Page 67449]]

programs to gather additional information on the possibility of rating 
child restraints for dynamic performance, and, by installing such 
restraints in vehicles tested in our existing frontal New Car 
Assessment Program (NCAP), the possibility of rating these vehicles on 
their ability to protect children. NCAP currently gives consumers a 
crashworthiness rating for new vehicles in frontal and side impact 
crashes, and a crash avoidance rating in rollover. For Model Year (MY) 
2003 and 2004 vehicles, we will conduct a pilot program and collect 
results for the vehicles subjected to NCAP frontal crashes with child 
restraints installed in the back seat. We will also conduct a second 
pilot program with child restraints subjected to a sled test. We plan 
to evaluate those results, but not publish them as part of NCAP during 
2003 and 2004. If analyses of the pilot programs show either or both of 
these would be meaningful consumer information, we anticipate adding 
performance ratings for either or both in MY 2005 (By Model Year 2005, 
we mean October 2004 to coincide with the commencement of the Fiscal 
Year 2005 New Car Assessment Program.)

II. Discussion of General Issues Raised by Commenters

    A notice was published November 6, 2001 (66 FR 56146), with the 
comment period closing January 7, 2002. Nineteen commenters replied. 
These responders were child restraint manufacturers, vehicle 
manufacturers, a testing laboratory, independent researchers, an 
insurance association, and consumer safety groups. Comments were 
provided regarding the agency's proposed rating system, and also 
cautioning that the agency should be alert to other issues. The other 
issues fell into two categories: (1) The most serious child safety 
problem comes from unrestrained children, and (2) retailers would only 
carry top-rated child seats, that would be the most expensive seats.

A. Major Safety Problem Is the Unrestrained Child

    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) argued, ``by far 
the biggest problem contributing to child injury and death in motor 
vehicle crashes is nonuse of restraints.'' IIHS cautioned that rating a 
child restraint might do nothing to get more children into a restraint. 
Evenflo, National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA), General Motors 
(GM), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and Britax stated 
reservations similar to IIHS's.
    The agency agrees that even the best child seat does little good if 
not used. The agency, manufacturers, local governments, and consumer 
groups have given a consistent message to the public to put children in 
age-appropriate restraints in the back seat of automobiles. This 
educational effort is bearing fruit: over the past decade the 
percentage of unrestrained child fatalities has decreased 
significantly.\1\ Recent analysis found that, ``among children 0 to 3 
years old, the percentage of fatalities where the child was 
unrestrained dropped from 58 percent in 1991 to 34 percent in 2000, 
mainly due to the increased usage of child restraint seats. This 
percentage dropped from 64 percent to 48 percent for the 4 to 8 year 
old age group, as lap and/or shoulder belt usage increased.'' Usage 
rates for child seats have also increased; in particular, during a rush 
hour survey, the under 5-age group had a child seat usage rate of 95% 
in 2000.\2\ The agency and all safety groups must continue their 
efforts to get more children in age-appropriate restraint systems and 
to educate the public about the systems' proper use and installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fatalities and Injuries to 0-8 Year Old Passenger Vehicle 
Occupants based on Impact Attributes, Technical Report DOT HS 809 
410, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, March 2002.
    \2\ National Occupant Protection Use Survey--2000 Controlled 
Intersection Study, Research Note DOT HS 809 318, National Center 
for Statistics and Analysis, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our belief is that an ease of use rating will help provide much 
needed guidance to consumers about certain child restraint features. We 
believe this guidance may help them choose the appropriate restraint 
for their child and vehicle. The goal is that an easy-to-use and an 
easy-to-adjust child seat will result in more children being properly 
restrained in the child seat. This increased correct use will increase 
the safety of child passengers. Our efforts to increase correct use of 
child restraints are not a substitute for our efforts to get all 
children in age-appropriate restraint systems. NHTSA and others will 
continue those efforts. This new child seat ratings program will add 
another element to our comprehensive program to increase restraint use 
among children and decrease child fatalities and injuries.

B. The Belief That Retailers Might Eliminate Lower-Priced Child 
Restraints

    The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) contended, 
``* * * mass market retailers are free to pick and choose among the 
product models offered * * * Any of these retailers * * * could easily 
insist that it will handle only `double five-star' child restraint 
models * * * Such a result would also likely lead to the elimination of 
lower-priced child restraints that have dynamic performance equal to or 
better than higher priced child restraints * * *.'' JPMA, GM, and the 
National Safe Kids Campaign voiced the same cautionary message, 
indicating that while the lower-priced CRS does an excellent job of 
protecting children, a safety rating system may have the unintended 
consequence of leaving some less-affluent families without a restraint. 
The groups giving child seats to lower-income families, ``* * * rely on 
those low-cost seats to distribute through their grass roots programs 
in order to reach families most in need.''
    We do not believe that lower priced child restraints will be 
eliminated from the market. The agency purchased twenty child seats 
ranging in price from $23 to $250. Without divulging the cost of the 
child seats to the evaluators, we applied the ease of use protocol to 
rate the twenty CRS in a pilot study. In this limited investigation, 
our analysis showed no correlation between higher priced seats and 
higher rated seats. We also present information in the notice showing 
that low priced CRS could provide highly rated dynamic performance.

III. CRS Ease of Use Rating Program

A. Summary of Proposal

    NHTSA modeled its proposed ease of use rating program on that used 
by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) because ICBC 
developed reasonably objective criteria for what is ``good,'' 
``acceptable,'' and ``poor,'' and NHTSA found ICBC's program to be 
repeatable. NHTSA proposed to rate ease of use features in four 
categories as A, B, or C, with A being the highest rating and C the 
lowest. NHTSA also proposed to take the ICBC rating one step further by 
combining the four category ratings into an overall ease of use rating. 
NHTSA proposed to rate each child restraint under the following four 
ease of use categories: Assembly, Evaluation of Labels/Instructions, 
Securing the Child, and Installation in Vehicle.

B. Summary of Comments

    In general, the individual child restraint manufacturer's comments 
were similar to the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA). 
The child restraint manufacturers (Evenflo, Dorel Juvenile Group) 
commented that the proposed ease of use program was too subjective and 
they stated that they support a program that is based on objective 
criteria. In that respect, the

[[Page 67450]]

child restraint manufacturers and JPMA provided recommendations to 
several areas of the proposal.
    In general, the individual vehicle manufacturers comments were 
similar to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance). The 
automobile manufacturers (General Motors, Toyota, Honda) and National 
Automobile Dealers Association supported an ease of use rating program. 
Ford did not state whether they supported the proposed program or not. 
Ford and the Alliance did state that they were unclear how the proposed 
program would apply to vehicle add-on and built in booster seats.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Safe Ride News, Child 
Passenger Protection Technical Consulting, Children's Hospital of 
Philadelphia (CHOP), Consumers Union, the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety (IIHS), and the ICBC generally supported the ease of use 
rating program. The Florida Child Passenger Safety and Resource Center 
suggested an alternative program; the National SAFE KIDS Campaign does 
not support an ease of use rating system, however, they do believe that 
communicating ease of use characteristics is important. Several 
commenters expressed their opinion that the ease of use ratings system 
should be presented in such a way as to not mislead consumers that it 
is a safety performance indicator.
    The major issues discussed by the commenters are summarized below.
1. Inclusion of LATCH
    NHTSA's proposal did not include ease of use evaluation criteria 
specific to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH).\3\ Several 
commenters (General Motors, Advocates, CHOP, and the Alliance) 
recommended LATCH be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``LATCH'' is a term used by industry and retail groups 
referring to the child restraint anchorage system required by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225. LATCH stands for 
``Lower Anchorages and Tethers for Children.'' The term is used to 
refer to vehicles equipped with the anchorage system (e.g., ``LATCH 
vehicles'') and to child restraints equipped with attachments that 
connect to the anchorage system (e.g., ``restrained with LATCH,'' or 
``LATCH child restraints''). For convenience, we will use the term 
in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Forms for Each Type of Restraint
    NHTSA's Federal Register Notice of November 6, 2001 included, as 
Appendix B, the proposed Ease of Use Rating Form. The first sheet of 
the form included a cover sheet to gather general information about the 
restraint; the type of restraint, make and model number, measurements, 
and size range for the restraint. The remaining sheets included the 
four proposed ease of use categories, the features under each category 
and the evaluation criteria for each feature. One of the choices for 
several of the feature criteria was non-applicable (n/a), intended to 
be the choice selected if that feature was not applicable to the 
restraint being evaluated. Also included in the notice was an Appendix 
C, which included an ease of use rating sample. This included a list of 
categories, the features under each category and sample scoring and 
rating for each. JPMA recommended NHTSA provide different criteria for 
the different types of restraints. They suggested that some child 
restraints would receive lower ratings because they may not have or 
need some features. Dorel concurred with JPMA, stating that they 
believe different types of child restraints will require separate, 
detailed criteria for each factor. Dorel stated, ``each type of child 
restraint has to have separate and distinct set of factors from which a 
rating will be assessed, otherwise certain types of child restraints 
will be unfairly rated.'' Evenflo recommended that NHTSA provide 
separate rear--and forward--facing ratings. Consumers Union ``urges 
inclusion of evaluation of ease of use of a convertible used rear-
facing and forward-facing.'' Advocates also recommended that child 
restraints be rated in all positions recommended by the manufacturer.
3. Features and Feature Evaluation Criteria
    NHTSA proposed to rate each child restraint in the same manner as 
ICBC, rating each child restraint based on two elements per feature, a 
fixed weighting factor for each feature and an ease of use rating for 
each feature that can change depending on the child restraint being 
rated. NHTSA proposed to rate child restraints under the following four 
ease of use categories: Assembly, Evaluation of Labels/Instructions, 
Securing the Child, and Installation in Vehicle. Each feature was given 
a fixed weighting factor as determined by the child restraint usability 
task force of ISO/TC22/SC12/WG1 (child restraints).\4\ It is based on 
each ease of use feature being given an A, B, or C according to risk of 
injury and severity of misuse. [Component features that minimize misuse 
that would pose a high risk of injury if misused are given a fixed 
weighting factor of ``A.''] Each factor is assigned a numerical value, 
where A = 3 points, B = 2 points, and C = 1 point. In addition, NHTSA 
proposed to rate each feature in the four categories as A, B, or C, 
with A (3 points) being the highest rating and C (1 point) the lowest, 
using the same numerical values as used by ICBC. The form containing 
NHTSA's proposed rating system criteria can be found in Appendix A. 
Below is a summary of comments by category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Working group TC22/SC12/WGI, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' to 
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a 
worldwide voluntary federation of ISO member bodies, is considering 
developing an ease of use usability rating system for child 
restraint systems. The group has based its preliminary work on the 
rating system of ICBC, which is similar to NHTSA's work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Assembly
    ICBC recommended clarifying ``all functional parts * * * ready to 
use'' to confirm that a convertible child restraint, whether threaded 
for rear facing infant restraint use or forward facing restraint use is 
``ready to use.'' ICBC also suggested rating the restraint based on the 
harness straps being set for the lowest rate range. JPMA requested a 
list of the components that will be evaluated under this feature. The 
proposed evaluation criterion for the ``ready to use'' feature states 
that a ``yes'' is an A and ``no'' is a C. Consumers Union recommended 
modifying the evaluation criteria to include a ``no tools required'' 
option.
    JPMA recommended changing the evaluation criteria under ``owner's 
manual easy to find'' and ICBC recommended clarifying ``clearly visible 
location.'' JPMA also stated that ``obvious storage pocket for the 
manual'' should not be rated. Under the feature, ``obvious storage 
pocket for manual'' JPMA and Evenflo disagreed with downgrading the 
rating for child restraints using plastic clips to store instructions. 
Evenflo supports a rating based on accessibility of instructions when 
the child restraint is installed, but stated they were concerned about 
visibility of instructions and them being accessible to children. 
Evenflo suggested rating accessibility and visibility of the 
instructions at time of purchase under ``owner's manual easy to find.''
b. Evaluation of Labels/Instructions
    Both ICBC and Evenflo recommended clarifying which features applied 
to labels and which applied to instructions. JPMA believes that NHTSA 
should prescribe exactly what it wants to see on labels and labels 
should not be part of a ratings program. Evenflo stated that they 
support a proposal to objectively evaluate consistency of information 
on labels. ICBC recommended under ``air bag warning in written 
instructions,'' that it not apply to booster seats. They also

[[Page 67451]]

suggested adding a minimum size to the illustration. ICBC also 
recommended that ``information in written instructions and on labels 
match,'' be clarified to refer to size specifications only. Both JPMA 
and Evenflo expressed concerns about the ``durability of labels'' 
feature. NHTSA proposed that a restraint would receive an A rating if 
the child restraint labels were molded or embossed or a C rating if the 
labels were sticky or one or more are already peeling when the 
restraint is removed from the box. JPMA stated that a highest rating 
for molded or heat embossed would be very costly for child restraint 
manufacturers. Evenflo also stated that this feature should be 
addressed in rulemaking and not through an ease of use rating system. 
ICBC did not agree that molded or embossed labels were better than 
sticky labels stating that embossed labeling which is the same color as 
plastic of child restraint can be difficult to read. They suggested 
that durability of labels be handled by performance tests. Consumers 
Union recommended adding the following features to this category, 
``Shows clear use of lower anchor system,'' and ``shows clearly when 
chest-clip has to be used.''
c. Securing the Child
    JPMA stated, ``unless features under `securing the child' can be 
converted to objective criteria they should not be included in the 
ratings program.'' They did agree with lowering the rating if the 
buckle can be secured in reverse. ICBC suggested that if the number of 
harness slots in the cover is not the same as the number of harness 
slots in the shell then the child restraint should automatically 
receive a C rating. Evenflo expressed concern that rating the number of 
harness slots would lead to consumer confusion. They also recommended 
investigating limitations imposed by patents for devices that 
reposition or adjust the harness. JPMA opposed a rating based on the 
number of harness slots. In addition to the proposed criteria rating 
``harness adjustment easy to tighten and loosen when child restraint is 
installed,'' SAFE KIDS recommended a feature be included that rates 
``easy access to shoulder harness height adjusters and harness 
tensioning devices.'' CHOP recommended NHTSA evaluate ease of use in 
regard to harness tightness. Consumers Union recommended moving ``ease 
of attaching/removing base'' from Securing the Child category to the 
Installation in Vehicle category. IIHS commented that these categories 
along with ``Installing in Vehicle'' are the most important categories.
d. Installing in Vehicle
    NHTSA specifically asked for views and comment on the consideration 
of adding a feature ``Ease of tightening belt around child restraint.'' 
Advocates responded to this request by stating they support adding such 
a feature but did not provide any recommendations for objective 
criteria by which to evaluate this feature. Both JPMA and Evenflo 
stated that they disagree with the category because it lacks specific 
criteria. They suggested rating the following features: size of belt 
path, whether any belt positioning device allows seat belt slack, 
presence of feedback to identify proper seat back angle (rear facing 
only), presence or means to adjust back angle, and accessibility of 
tether adjustment when child restraint is installed in the vehicle. 
ICBC recommended, under ``ease of vehicle belt routing (hand 
clearance)'' that the male hand be better defined. CHOP recommended 
NHTSA evaluate ease of use in regard to child restraint tightness in 
the vehicle. Consumers Union recommended adding a new feature, ``fit to 
the vehicle.''
4. Weighting the Features
    NHTSA proposed a weighting of the ease of use features similar to 
ICBC, where each child restraint is rated based on two elements per 
feature. Each feature is given a fixed weighting factor that remains 
the same for all child restraints. It is based on each ease of use 
feature being given an A, B, or C according to risk of injury and 
severity of misuse. [Component features that minimize misuse that would 
pose a high risk of injury if misused are given a fixed weighting 
factor of ``A.''] Each factor is assigned a numerical value, where A = 
3 points, B = 2 points, and C = 1 point. The second element, which is 
based on rating the features of each child restraint, are similarly 
assigned a numerical value where an A rating = 3 points, a B rating = 2 
points, and a C rating = 1 point. NHTSA proposed rating the category by 
taking the numerical value of the fixed weighting factor for each 
feature and multiplying it by the numerical value of that features 
rating. Point ranges for A, B, and C were determined through a 3-part 
split of the range of possible points for that factor, from the minimum 
(if all scores were coded ``C'') to the maximum (if all scores were 
coded ``A'') number of points. Appendix B of this final notice contains 
the ``NHTSA Ease of Use Rating Sample'' which was included in the 
proposed Notice. NHTSA also proposed using a ``limiting factor'' 
approach so that an overall rating could not be an A if more than one 
of the four categories was rated less than an A. Similarly, an overall 
rating could not be a B if more than one of the four categories was 
rated a C. There was only one comment addressing the weighting of the 
features. Consumers Union agreed that a seat should not receive an A 
rating if more than one out of the four categories is rated below an A 
or B and, they agreed with the determining factor for a B rating as 
well. They recommended this limiting factor approach be applied to the 
individual ease of use categories as well.
5. Low Cost Seats
    General Motors responded to the agency's proposed ease of use 
rating system by stating, ``higher priced seats tend to have more non-
safety related features that could affect ease of use rating.'' The 
National SAFE KIDS Campaign believes that with the rating system there 
will be a perceived correlation between higher rated seats and higher 
costs for child restraints. With this perception, they believe that low 
cost seats will less likely be produced. JPMA also expressed concern 
that lower cost seats would be forced from the market.
6. Subjectivity of Ease of Use Rating
    JPMA, Evenflo, and Dorel Juvenile Group commented that the proposed 
ease of use program was too subjective and they stated that they 
support a program that is based on objective criteria.
7. Other Comments
    Advocates recommended that along with the rating system NHTSA 
include recall information as a separately listed item that is rated. 
They suggested including recall information with each category. They 
also suggested that a product with no recalls would get high marks and 
a product with one or more recalls no points.

C. Focus Group Testing on Proposed Child Restraint Rating Program

    Following the publication of the proposed rating program on 
November 6, NHTSA conducted research aimed at exploring the 
perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes of parents and caregivers 
regarding NHTSA's Proposed Ease of Use and Performance Ratings for 
child safety seats. This research was conducted in two phases. The 
first phase consisted of 21 in-depth, one-on-one interviews with 
caregivers who regularly transported children. These interviews took 
place in Baltimore, MD and explored how participants would interpret 
and use ratings. During the

[[Page 67452]]

interviews, draft versions of charts that provide the ease of use and 
performance ratings were tested. Using the findings of the in-depth 
interviews, minor changes were made to the chart displaying the ratings 
to make them easier to read. The findings of this research were used 
for phase two of this research and will be used to determine the 
direction of presenting consumer information concerning child safety 
seats.
    The second phase involved conducting 12 focus groups to test ways 
to present ratings to consumers. Twelve focus groups were conducted, 
four in Minneapolis, MN, four in Phoenix, AZ, and four in Richmond, VA. 
Participants were recruited by a professional recruiting agency. 
Screening criteria used in selecting participants included: were a 
parent or caregiver of a child up to six years of age or expecting a 
child within the next three months; purchased or planned to purchase a 
child safety seat themselves or were as likely as the other parent or 
caregiver to purchase a child safety seat; regularly transported a 
child in an automobile (or planned to do so); did not work or volunteer 
for any organization involved in the regulation, advocacy, or policy 
setting for motor vehicles; did not work or volunteer for any 
organization involved in the regulation, advocacy, or policy setting 
for children's products; and were between 20 and 55 years of age. Key 
outcomes from these focus groups:

Choosing a Child Safety Seat

    [sbull] For most participants, safety ranked among the top two or 
three considerations in purchasing a child safety seat, along with 
price and appearance.
    [sbull] Most respondents did not believe that, in general, the more 
a seat costs the safer it is. They stated that additional costs for a 
child seat were mainly due to extra features such as cup holders or the 
make/brand of the seat. Many, however, believed that people other than 
themselves held the belief that the safety of the seat is correlated 
with its cost.
    [sbull] Most participants said that ratings influence their 
decision-making process when making a purchase.
    [sbull] Respondents overwhelmingly preferred the use of stars to 
rate the seats.
    [sbull] Most participants believed safety ratings are assigned 
based on absolute criteria, i.e., the product must meet certain 
specified requirements to get a given rating.

Ease of Use Rating

    [sbull] Most participants reacted positively to the information 
tables they saw and said the Ease of Use Rating would help them when 
deciding on a child safety seat.
    [sbull] Most participants preferred the chart that included the 
Ease of Use Criteria. They explained that they liked having as much 
information as possible, and because they valued some criteria over 
others, seeing all the individual ratings was more helpful.
    [sbull] Most respondents said they understood that the Total Ease 
of Use Rating was derived from combining the ratings on each Ease of 
Use Criterion.
    [sbull] Most reacted positively to the use of a letter grade scale 
for the Ease of Use Rating because it differentiated the Ease of Use 
Rating from the Performance Rating that would be assigned based on the 
child seats performance in dynamic tests.

Performance Rating of Child Restraints in Dynamic Testing

    [sbull] The Performance Rating was well received by participants, 
with many saying that it was more important than the Ease of Use 
Rating. However, many said that they wanted more information on how the 
ratings are derived and what constitutes ``serious injury.''

Combining Ratings

    [sbull] Most participants said they would not want a rating that 
combined performance and ease of use. They mentioned that they usually 
like more information to be available and that a combined rating might 
be misleading.

Brochure

    [sbull] Participants stated that a brochure including one of the 
charts they viewed should also include information on different harness 
types, price ranges of individual seats, explanations of the tests that 
are done when a seat is rated, and explanations of the column headings 
on the chart. Respondents said that the brochure should use color and 
graphics and text should be in a bullet-point format.

D. Response to Comments and Final Ease of Use Rating Program

    The agency reviewed and considered all the comments. NHTSA's 
responses to the comments are below. Along with the responses to the 
comments, the final ease of use rating program is also presented. The 
final Ease of Use rating and scoring forms used for child restraints 
can be found in Appendix C of this notice. This ease of use rating 
program will apply to add on child restraints only. In developing an 
ease of use ratings program, NHTSA did not consider built-in child 
restraints, thus the features and rating criteria are designed to 
evaluate only add on child restraints. In order for NHTSA to evaluate 
built-in child restraints, a modified set of criteria would need to be 
developed. Based on the time frame for implementing the child restraint 
ratings program, developing and testing criteria to rate built-in child 
restraints is not possible. However, rating built-in child restraints 
may be explored by the agency in the future.
1. LATCH
    The agency concurs with the commenters' belief that the ease of use 
rating program should include an assessment of a child restraint's 
incorporation of LATCH. LATCH will be the standardized means of 
attaching child restraints to vehicle seats in the future, so it is 
reasonable to include LATCH in the rating program. To address LATCH, we 
expanded some features within the ``Evaluation of Labels,'' 
``Evaluation of Instructions,'' and ``Installing in 
Vehicle''categories. Certain features in these categories were 
identified as being appropriate for addressing LATCH, in addition to 
assessing attachment of the child restraint by way of the belt system. 
These are discussed below. NHTSA is also considering incorporating 
other LATCH features into the ease of use program, such as ease of 
attaching LATCH attachments to the vehicle anchors. The agency will be 
considering the work of the ISO/WGI Usability Task Force in developing 
other ways of assessing LATCH in the agency's ease of use program. The 
agency will request comments on how other aspects of LATCH should be 
addressed in the future.
    Two LATCH features have been added to the ``Evaluation of Labels'' 
category. The first is ``Shows how to prepare lower LATCH attachments 
for use.'' An A rating is ``visually obvious and able to use with 
illustration only, no need to read text, or no illustration required,'' 
a B rating is ``Illustrations plus written instructions provided, need 
to read text,'' and a C rating is ``Written instruction only provided 
or nothing.'' This feature's fixed weighting factor is A. The second 
added feature is ``Shows how to use lower LATCH attachments.'' An A 
rating is ``visually obvious and able to use with illustration only, no 
need to read text. This feature has the same B, and C rating criteria 
and fixed weighting factor as the first feature. To get an A rating 
under the feature ``shows how to use lower LATCH attachments,'' NHTSA 
believes that having an

[[Page 67453]]

illustration on the label showing the attachments connecting to the 
vehicle anchors will provide consumers with clear information about how 
this new technology is to be used. NHTSA believes that providing 
consumers with visual obvious and instruction on preparing and using 
this new technology is important for not only ease of use, but for 
correct use, which in turn results in increased safety for child 
occupants.
    Three LATCH features have been added to the ``Evaluation of 
Instructions'' category. The first is, ``Instructions describe how to 
prepare lower LATCH attachments for use.'' An A rating is ``Visually 
obvious and able to use with illustration only, no need to read text, a 
B rating is ``Illustrations plus written instructions provided, need to 
read text,'' and a C rating is ``Written instruction only provided or 
nothing.'' The fixed weighting factor for this feature is a B.
    The second is, ``Instructions show how to use lower LATCH 
attachments.'' The A, B, and C ratings are the same as the first as 
well as the fixed weighting factor. The fixed weighting factors are 
lower for these features (weighting factor is B) under the ``Evaluation 
of Instructions'' category than under the ``Evaluation of Labels'' 
category (weighting factor is A) because NHTSA is aware that many 
consumers look only at the labels for instruction and not the 
instruction manual.
    The third is, ``Orientation for LATCH tether and lower 
attachments.'' An A rating is ``Correct orientation of LATCH tether and 
lower attachments clearly illustrated or text clearly states that it 
can be used in any orientation,'' a B rating is ``Correct orientation 
of LATCH tether and lower attachments explained only in text,'' and a C 
rating is ``No information regarding orientation of LATCH tether and 
lower attachments.'' This feature is not applicable if orientation 
cannot be changed. The fixed weighting factor for this feature is a B. 
This feature is similar to ``Buckle can be secured in reverse'' feature 
under ``Securing the Child.'' NHTSA included this feature because of 
experiencing some LATCH hardware which when reversed was difficult to 
un-attach. Orientation for LATCH tether is not applicable to rear 
facing restraints or booster seats.
    Two LATCH features were also added to the ``Installing in Vehicle'' 
category: The first is, ``Can LATCH attachments interfere with 
harness.'' An A rating is ``No'' and a C rating is ``Yes.'' The fixed 
weighting factor for this feature is an A. This was included to 
coincide with the ``Separation of vehicle belt path from harness'' 
criteria for seat belts out of concern that if there is interference of 
the LATCH attachment (or seat belt) with the harness, it could prevent 
the harness from being properly adjusted on the child. The second is 
``LATCH tether and lower attachments can be installed in reverse.'' An 
A rating is ``no, or yes but works in usual way,'' a B rating is ``yes, 
but usual release requires more effort,'' and a C rating is ``yes, and 
can't release.'' The fixed weighting factor for this feature is a A. 
This feature is similar to ``Buckle can be secured in reverse'' feature 
under ``Securing the Child.'' NHTSA has seen some LATCH hardware, which 
can be reversed and is difficult to un-attach if this is done. The 
tether features being rated do not apply to rear facing restraints. 
Also, if a child restraint does not have LATCH (e.g., booster seats) 
then these features will not be rated.
2. Forms for Each Type of Restraint
    While the agency published one set of forms encompassing all rating 
criteria, NHTSA was aware that not all features would apply to all 
restraints and thus had not intended to rate all child restraints with 
all criteria. NHTSA recognized that this caused confusion among 
commenters and agrees that separate forms should be used for the 
different types of restraints. NHTSA has revised its forms and the 
final ease of use rating program has three sets of forms, which can be 
found in Appendix C. One set will be used to rate infant or convertible 
restraints used rear facing. Another set will be used to rate 
convertible restraints forward facing, forward facing only, and 
transitional forward facing/booster with the harness. The third set 
will be used to rate booster seats and transitional forward facing/
booster as a booster.
    NHTSA also agrees with comments recommending rating dual or 
multiple purpose seats each way. Therefore, a convertible restraint 
will be rated both rear facing and forward facing. A combination 
forward facing/booster will be evaluated as a forward facing restraint 
and as a booster seat. NHTSA is also aware that some of the features 
apply to some child restraints but do not apply to others, for example, 
under ``Evaluation of Labels'' and ``Evaluation of Instructions,'' one 
of the features is ``shows which harness slots OK to use.'' When 
evaluating a convertible seat, there are harness slots in this type of 
seat that can only be used forward facing while the others are used for 
rear facing, therefore this feature applies and thus would be rated. 
When evaluating a forward facing only or transitional forward facing/
booster with the harness it would be ``n/a'' because all the slots can 
be used in the forward facing position. This is taken into 
consideration when scoring. This issue is discussed later in the notice 
under the section titled ``Weighting the Features.''
3. Features and Feature Evaluation Criteria
    Below, comments on the final features and feature evaluation 
criteria are addressed by category. This section also lists the final 
features within each category. Each of the forms, located in Appendix C 
has the categories, the features and the feature evaluation criteria 
listed.
a. Assembly
    NHTSA concurs with ICBC that we should clarify the language under 
``all functioning parts * * * ready to use.'' NHTSA also agrees that 
adding ``harness straps set for lowest rate range'' to this feature was 
a good idea. NHTSA believes that this is a sufficiently clear criterion 
to describe whether a restraint, when taken out of the box, is ready 
for a consumer to use. The proposed evaluation criterion for this 
feature was: an A was ``yes,'' and a C was ``No.'' There was no B 
rating. NHTSA has adopted Consumers Union's recommendation to add a 
``no tools required'' criteria and has modified the evaluation criteria 
to reflect this. Under this feature, an A is ``yes,'' and B is ``No, 
tools not required,'' and C is ``No, tools required.'' For a 
convertible seat used rear facing this feature will be rated. Then, 
when evaluated as forward facing, this feature will not be rated. The 
same applies for a transitional forward facing/booster seat with 
harness. When this restraint is being rated as a forward facing 
restraint this feature will be rated. Then, when it is rated as a 
booster seat this feature will not be rated.
    NHTSA has clarified the feature ``Owner's manual easy to find'' and 
the evaluation needed to get an A rating for that feature. The feature 
now states ``Owner's manual easy to find when taken out of box'' and 
``A'' was clarified to say, ``Attached to child restraint in a clearly 
visible location.'' The evaluation criteria for B and C remain the 
same. ``Attached to child restraint in a clearly visible location'' 
does not mean the manual has to be in the storage compartment. In many 
cases NHTSA found manuals clearly visible in plastic bags attached to 
the child restraint harness when the restraint was taken out of the 
box. NHTSA would give these seats an A rating for this feature.
    NHTSA believes that the feature ``storage pocket for the manual'' 
is an important feature to rate for ease of use

[[Page 67454]]

because if consumers can access and store the manual easily, they will 
be more likely to keep it with the restraint and refer to it if need 
be. NHTSA found that the term ``pocket'' was misleading in that we were 
referring to an actual storage system, not just a pocket. Therefore, 
NHTSA has replaced the word ``pocket'' with ``system.'' NHTSA reviewed 
JPMA and Evenflo's comments to provide a lower score to a child 
restraint that uses plastic clips as the tool for storing instruction 
manuals. After testing the ease of use in relation to plastic clips, 
NHTSA has modified its evaluation criteria. NHTSA found that in many 
cases it was easy to remove and replace the manuals on child restraints 
that used plastic clips for storage. Therefore, under ``Storage system 
for manual,'' the revised evaluation criteria are as follows: an A 
rating is ``manual removed and replaced easily,'' and a C rating is 
``manual cannot be removed and replaced easily.'' There is no B rating. 
This revised evaluation criteria also addresses the concerns Evenflo 
had about accessibility and visibility of the instructions when the 
restraint is installed.
    The rating forms, located in Appendix C include the categories, the 
features and the feature evaluation criteria. Listed below are the 
features under the Assembly category that will be in NHTSA's final 
rating program:
    (1) All functioning parts including seat pad or cover attached and 
ready to use; harness in lowest usable slots; includes tether attached 
(tether attached applies to forward facing only restraints and 
transitional forward facing/booster seats used with the harness);
    (2) Tether attached to child restraint (this applies to convertible 
seats used forward facing);
    (3) Owner's manual easy to find when child restraint removed from 
box; and
    (4) Storage system for manual.
b. Evaluation of Labels
    Even though NHTSA requires certain information to be on child 
restraint labels and in the instructions (such as model number, date of 
manufacture, statement concerning manufacturer's recommendations for 
maximum mass and height of children who can use the restraint, etc.), 
we do not think it is possible to specify the exact content of labels. 
There are so many different designs of child restraints, each with 
unique features that must be used differently to get optimal protection 
for the child occupant. However, we believe that clear, concise, and 
consistent information with illustrations of children in child 
restraints can be very effective in aiding consumers to properly use 
and install a child restraint. Therefore, NHTSA will include evaluation 
of labels and instructions in its ease of use rating program.
    The agency agrees with the comments about the need to clarify which 
features applied to labels and which applied to instructions. NHTSA has 
responded to this comment by making separate categories for each. NHTSA 
also found a need to have separate categories because we found that as 
we rated several child restraints in our pilot study of the rating 
system, which is discussed in detail further in the notice under the 
section titled ``Low Cost Seats and Repeatability,'' the child 
restraints received different ratings for the same feature. For 
example, for the feature ``Clear indication of child's size range'' we 
found that the same restraint may receive an ``A'' rating on its label 
and a ``C `` rating in the instructions.
    NHTSA also agreed with comments related to our proposed durability 
rating. Therefore, we have modified the evaluation criteria. Under 
``durability of labels,'' in this notice, an A rating is now ``sticky 
label not peeling or other method of technology label not peeling,'' 
and a C rating remains the same ``sticky label if one or more are 
already peeling when restraint is removed from box.'' There is no B 
rating.
    NHTSA chose not to adopt Consumers Union's recommendation to add 
the following as a separate feature ``shows clearly when chest clip has 
to be used.'' However, we included this element as part of the feature 
``Clear indication of child's size range,'' under both the categories 
``Evaluation of Labels'' and ``Evaluation of Instructions.'' This 
feature is the only one where we rate an illustration of a child in the 
restraint. Under this feature we are looking for a picture of a child 
in the restraint (with use of harness clip) along with size 
measurements (e.g., height and weight) for use. Listed below are the 
features under the Evaluation of Labels category in NHTSA's final 
rating program:
    (1) Clear indication of child's size range;
    (2) All modes of use clearly indicated (e.g., rear-facing only, or 
RF vs. FF; FF + tether (vs. RF); FF + tether (v. booster); LATCH);
    (3) Shows which harness slots OK to use (on forward facing form 
only);
    (4) Instructions for routing both lap belt and lap/shoulder belt 
(tether use for FF);
    (5) Shows how to prepare lower LATCH attachments for use (not on 
booster seat form);
    (6) Shows how to use lower LATCH attachments (not on booster seat 
form);
    (7) Visibility of seat belt routing for lap belt, lap/shoulder 
belt, and LATCH when child restraint is in position in vehicle (LATCH 
not on the booster form); and
    (8) Durability of labels.
c. Evaluation of Instructions
    NHTSA has chosen to apply the feature ``air bag warning in written 
instructions'' to forward facing/convertible child restraints used 
forward facing and to booster seats as well as rear facing restraints. 
While NHTSA requires an air bag warning only for seats that can be used 
rear facing, NHTSA recommends children ages 12 and under ride in the 
back seat, because an air bag can seriously injure or kill a child. 
Therefore, NHTSA believes it is important to rate this feature for all 
types of child restraints. Although NHTSA is going to rate ``air bag 
warning in written instructions,'' the agency is not going to add a 
size minimum to the rating criteria because we believe that the 
evaluation criteria under A, ``Separate, highlighted, and 
illustrated,'' are sufficient for rating this feature.
    NHTSA agrees with ICBC 's recommendation to clarify that the 
feature ``information in written instructions and on labels match'' 
referred to size measurements, and NHTSA has added that on the form.
    The rating forms, located in Appendix C include the categories, the 
features and the feature evaluation criteria. Listed below are the 
features under the Evaluation of Instructions category in NHTSA's final 
rating program:
    (1) Clear indication of child's size range;
    (2) All modes of use clearly indicated (e.g., rear-facing only, or 
RF vs. FF; FF + tether (vs. RF); FF + tether (v. booster) and LATCH);
    (3) Air bag warning in written instructions;
    (4) Shows which harness slots OK to use (on forward facing form 
only);
    (5) Instructions for routing both lap belt and lap/shoulder belt;
    (6) Instructions describe how to prepare lower LATCH attachments 
for use (not on booster seat form);
    (7) Instructions show how to use lower LATCH attachments (not on 
booster seat form);
    (8) Orientation of LATCH tether and lower attachments (tether not 
on rear facing restraint form and LATCH not on booster seat form); and
    (9) Information in written instructions and on labels match (size 
measurements)

[[Page 67455]]

d. Securing the Child
    NHTSA concurs with ICBC's recommendation that if the number of 
harness slots in the cover do not match the number of harness slots in 
the shell, then the child restraint should automatically receive a C 
rating. NHTSA wants to ensure that consumers will not be confused and 
potentially misuse a seat because there are differences in the number 
of slots in the pad vs. the shell. NHTSA is also aware that fit is an 
important aspect to proper use and by having more variation in harness 
slot number this allows more choices for fit as a child grows. 
Therefore, the proposed feature has been modified to two features: 
``Number of harness slots match (pad and shell)'' and ``Number of 
harness slots in shell.'' Under rating ``Number of harness slots match 
(pad and shell)'' an A is ``yes'' and a C is ``no.'' Under rating 
``Number of harness slots in shell'' an A is ``at least 3 or 1 
adjustable,'' a B is ``2'' and a C is ``1.''
    NHTSA has examined the issue raised by commenters about patents for 
devices that reposition or adjust the harness. We do not believe our 
ratings raise a patent issue. The agency is not making reference to a 
specific product or device, only to a feature that would allow the 
harness straps to be adjusted without rethreading the straps.
    NHTSA agrees with SAFE KIDS' comment recommending a feature be 
added that rates accessibility to the harness adjustment. NHTSA has 
added the following feature, ``When installed, easy access to harness 
adjustment for tightening and loosening,'' and A rating is ``yes'' and 
a C rating is ``no.'' There is no B rating.
    NHTSA does not believe that it is possible to rate ease of use in 
regard to harness tightness. CHOP did not provide any objective rating 
evaluation criteria in support of its recommendation. Therefore NHTSA 
will not be adopting this recommendation.
    NHTSA agrees with Consumers Unions' recommendation to move ``Ease 
of attaching removing base'' to the ``Installing in Vehicle'' category. 
NHTSA has moved this feature to the form applicable to rear facing 
child restraints. NHTSA appreciates IIHS' comment regarding the 
importance of this category and the ``Installing in vehicle'' category. 
However, NHTSA doesn't want to decide that certain categories are the 
``most important.'' NHTSA believes that all the categories are 
important to proper use and installation of a child restraint.
    Under NHTSA's final rating program the booster seat form only has 
one feature under this category: (1) Ease of conversion forward facing 
to booster or highback to backless.
    The rating forms, located in Appendix C include the categories, the 
features and the feature evaluation criteria. Listed below are the 
features under the Securing the Child category in NHTSA's final rating 
program:
    (1) Buckle can be secured in reverse;
    (2) When installed, easy access to harness adjustment for 
tightening and loosening;
    (3) Harness adjustment easy to tighten and loosen when child 
restraint is installed;
    (4) Number of harness slots match (pad and shell);
    (5) Number of harness slots in shell;
    (6) Visibility of harness slots;
    (7) Ease of conversion forward facing to rear facing (rear facing 
form)

--Ease of conversion from rear facing to forward facing (forward facing 
form);
--Ease of conversion from booster to forward facing (forward facing 
form);

    (8) Ease of changing harness slot position;
    (9) Ease of reassembly if pad/cover is removed for cleaning or 
rethreading of harness; and
    (10) Ease of adjusting/removing shield.
e. Installing in Vehicle
    NHTSA will not be including the proposed feature ``Ease of 
tightening belt around child restraint,'' because we could not come up 
with objective rating criteria and did not receive any recommendations 
from commenters. JPMA and Evenflo suggested features to rate under this 
category, the first being the size of the belt path. NHTSA will not be 
rating specific size of the belt path because we believe that belt path 
size is not the only factor involved in belt routing. We believe that 
child seat design is also a factor. A child seat could have a large 
enough belt path, but the design of the restraint may make it difficult 
to route the vehicle belt through. However, also under this feature, 
ICBC had recommended the ``male hand'' be better defined. We agree that 
the male hand could be better defined. Therefore, NHTSA will be using a 
human hand that represents the 95th percentile male dimensions as 
defined in Human Factors Design Handbook Wesley E. Woodson, Man 
Factors, Inc. McGraw Hill, 1981 to determine the rating for this 
feature.
    NHTSA will retain the proposed feature ``does belt positioning 
device allow slack to occur?'' This is an evaluation criterion only for 
booster seats. NHTSA has also adopted the recommendation to add 
``presence of feedback to identify proper seat back angle'' for rear-
facing restraints. NHTSA has not adopted the recommendation to rate 
``accessibility of tether adjustment when child restraint is installed 
in the vehicle'' because NHTSA believes that this may vary depending on 
the tether anchor location in the vehicle and therefore it would be 
very challenging to objectively rate this feature.
    NHTSA chose not to include any feature related to tightness in 
vehicle and fit to vehicle because the geometry of vehicle seats varies 
so much from vehicle to vehicle. Under NHTSA's final rating program, 
the booster seat form only has two features under this category and 
both could be non-applicable depending on the seat being rated: (1) 
Ease of use of any belt positioning hardware on the child restraint, 
and (2) Does belt positioning device allow slack to occur?
    The rating forms, located in Appendix C include the categories, the 
features and the feature evaluation criteria. Listed below are the 
features under the Installing in Vehicle category in NHTSA's final 
rating program. The features related to LATCH do not apply to booster 
seats:
    (1) Separation of belt path from harness (on rear facing form 
applies to base also if applicable);
    (2) Can lower LATCH attachments interfere with harness;
    (3) Ease of vehicle belt routing (hand clearance) (on rear facing 
form applies to base also if applicable);
    (4) Ease of attaching and removing from child seat from base (on 
rear facing form applies to base if applicable);
    (5) Ease of use of any belt positioning feature including lock off;
    (6) Tether easy to tighten and release (on forward facing form 
only);
    (7) Presence of feedback for seat back angle (on rear facing form 
only); and
    (8) LATCH tether and lower attachments can be installed in reverse.
4. Weighting the Features
    NHTSA will adopt the procedure for weighting the features as 
proposed, with slight modifications to determining the point ranges for 
scoring as well as changes to the limiting factor approach for 
obtaining an overall ease of use score. The limiting factor approach 
could not be applied in the final notice because the final rating 
program has five ease of use categories instead of four as originally 
proposed.
    Child restraints are rated for ease of use based on five 
categories: (1) Assembly, (2) Evaluation of Labels, (3) Evaluation of 
Instructions, (4) Securing the Child, and (5) Installing in the

[[Page 67456]]

Vehicle. Each category has several ease of use features that child 
restraints are evaluated on. As in the proposal, a score for each 
feature is based on two elements. The first element is a fixed 
weighting factor and is based on each ease of use feature being given 
an A, B, or C according to risk of injury and severity of misuse. 
Component features that could be associated with a high risk of injury 
if misused are given a fixed weighting factor of ``A.'' Each factor is 
assigned a numerical value, where A = 3 points, B = 2 points, and C = 1 
point. The scoring forms to be used to rate child restraints are 
located in Appendix C along with the rating forms. Each features' fixed 
weighting factor can be found on the scoring forms. The second element, 
which is based on rating the features of each child restraint, are 
similarly assigned a numerical value where an A rating = 3 points, a B 
rating = 2 points, and a C rating = 1 point. As explained above, some 
features may include only two of these three ratings (A or C). Also, if 
a feature is not applicable, the points for that feature and the 
weighted factor are both treated as zero. NHTSA proposed a feature 
score by multiplying the numerical values of the feature rating by the 
fixed weighting factor. The weighted average for the category is 
calculated by taking the sum of the feature scores divided by the sum 
of the applicable fixed weighting factors. The weighted average will be 
between 1.00 and 3.00. Each category rating can then be given a rating 
of A, B, or C based on the weighted average.
    A: Weighted Average from 2.40 to 3.00
    B: Weighted Average from 1.70 to less than 2.40
    C: Weighted Average less than 1.70
    This differs from the proposal where point ranges for category 
rating A, B, or C were determined by a 3-part split of the range of 
possible points for that category.
    The overall rating is calculated in a similar manner. The overall 
weighted average is equal to the sum of the feature scores for all 
features divided by the sum of the weighted factors for all applicable 
features. This will still be between 1.00 and 3.00. The overall rating 
uses the same ranges as the category ratings listed above. A sample of 
the revised ease of use scoring can be found in Appendix D.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.000

5. Low Cost Seats and Repeatability/Subjectivity
    To address commenters' concerns about the rating system producing a 
correlation between higher rated seats and the higher priced child 
restraints, the agency conducted a pilot study using the revised ease 
of use rating program to examine this issue. During this pilot study 
the agency also examined the repeatability/subjectivity of the ease of 
use rating program.
    NHTSA purchased a total of 20 child restraints of varying price 
ranges from four different retail stores. The agency rated four infant 
only restraints ranging in price from $34.99 to $119.95; five 
convertible restraints ranging in price from $49.99 to $249.95; two 
forward facing only restraints ranging in price from $59.99 to $179.95; 
five transitional forward facing/booster seats ranging in price from 
$54.99 to $89.99; and four booster seats ranging in price from $22.99 
to $124.95. NHTSA followed the proposed protocol for rating the child 
restraints in the pilot study, using draft-revised forms based on 
comments received from the notice. Following a one-day training to 
review the forms, each of the features and their evaluation criteria, 
two 2-person teams evaluated each child restraint. To determine the 
installation ratings, we used a representative seating device, as 
opposed to the current FMVSS No. 213 bench, since a FMVSS No. 213 bench 
seat was not available within the time constraints for this pilot 
study. The results of the pilot study did not show a correlation 
between higher priced seats and higher rated seats. Of the 20 seats 
rated in the pilot study, there were a range of A and B scores across 
the price ranges. Only one of the 20 restraints rated received an 
overall score of C, and it was a mid-priced convertible restraint. 
While the most expensive seat purchased did receive an overall A 
rating, there were A rated seats among the lower priced seats. Based on 
this, we do not believe that the concerns with lower priced child 
restraints being eliminated from the market are warranted.
    Following the pilot study, the agency also concluded that an ease 
of use rating program would be repeatable. During the pilot study, to 
the extent that the teams ended up with a different rating (we did find 
minor differences within ratings of features within each category), the 
two teams jointly reexamined the child restraint before a rating was 
determined. The variations between the teams did not affect the overall 
rating. The findings in the pilot study were consistent with the 
findings when NHTSA conducted a hands-on evaluation of ICBC ratings 
program. We believe that the process of having two, or more, 2-person 
teams evaluating each child restraint is important to ensure 
repeatability and objectivity. Two teams of two will be used to rate 
the child restraints and if there are instances of non-concurrence, a 
third team of two will rate the restraint.
6. Other Comments
    NHTSA agrees that informing the public about recalls of child 
restraints is important. However, NHTSA does not know how recalls could 
be incorporated into a ratings program. Recalls do not occur until 
after a child restraint is on the market. NHTSA plans to rate child 
restraints prior to or shortly after they are available on the retail 
market. In an effort to publish ratings information and make it 
available to the public in a timely fashion and following the same 
procedure as the compliance child seat testing, NHTSA will be ordering 
child restraints from the manufacturers before they are shipped to 
retailers. NHTSA plans to coordinate rating the child restraints and 
releasing the information with their availability to consumers at 
retailers.
    NHTSA plans to continue improving our methods of informing the 
public about recalls. NHTSA currently has a list of child restraints 
that are available to consumers. As part of that list, if a seat on the 
market has been recalled, it is highlighted on the Web site. NHTSA 
plans to post the child restraint ratings on the Web site, and if a 
child restraint is recalled, the agency will highlight the rated child 
restraint on the Web site to alert consumers that a particular seat has 
been recalled.
7. Summary of Final Ease of Use Protocol
    The final ease of use rating program consists of the following 
elements:
    [sbull] Three sets of forms will be used to evaluate add-on child 
restraints. Combination child restraints will be rated in each mode of 
use. One set of forms will be used to rate rear-facing only and 
convertible child restraints in the rear-facing mode. Another set of 
forms will be used to rate convertible seats in the forward facing 
mode, forward facing only restraints, and combination forward facing/
booster seats in the forward facing mode. The third set of forms will 
be used to rate booster seats and combination forward facing/booster 
seats in the booster seat mode.
    [sbull] Five ease of use categories will be rated: (1) Assembly, 
(2) Evaluation of Labels, (3) Evaluation of Instructions, (4)

[[Page 67457]]

Securing the Child, and (5) Installing in Vehicle. Features related to 
ease of use within each category, including LATCH, will be rated.
    [sbull] Two, or more, 2-person teams will be used to rate each 
child restraint. Prior to rating, the teams will have a day of training 
to review and examine the forms, review each of the features and their 
evaluation criteria, conduct practice ratings and answer questions. To 
determine ease of use installation ratings, NHTSA will install the 
restraint using the current FMVSS No. 213 bench. If and when the FMVSS 
No. 213 bench is updated, the team will use the updated test bench. No 
dummy will be used during this process.
    [sbull] Each child restraint will receive a rating for each of the 
five ease of use categories as well as an overall ease of use rating. 
The weighted average for the category is calculated by taking the 
feature score divided by the sum of applicable fixed weighting factors. 
The weighted average will be between 1.00 and 3.00. Each category 
rating can then be given a rating of A, B, or C based on the weighted 
average.
    A: Weighted Average from 2.40 to 3.00
    B: Weighted Average from 1.70 to less than 2.40
    C: Weighted Average less than 1.70
    [sbull] The overall rating is calculated in a similar manner. The 
overall weighted average is equal to the sum of all feature scores 
divided by the sum of all fixed weighting factors. This will still be 
between 1.00 and 3.00. The overall rating uses the same ranges as the 
category ratings.
    [sbull] NHTSA plans to begin implementing the ease of use rating 
program following the publication of this Notice. NHTSA plans to obtain 
child restraints from the manufacturers and begin rating them shortly 
before they are available to the public. NHTSA's plans for distribution 
of rating results can be found in section VII of this notice.

IV. CRS Dynamic Performance Rating Program

A. Summary of Proposal

    In the notice document dated November 6, 2001, NHTSA proposed to 
rate the dynamic performance of child restraints using the same 
approach as NCAP crashworthiness. With this approach, child restraints 
would undergo an identical test procedure to that used in FMVSS No. 
213, the compliance tests of child restraints, except for test speed. 
In FMVSS No. 213, child restraints are subjected to a specific pulse 
that has a change in velocity of 48 kmph (30 mph). In the agency 
proposal, child restraints would be rated using the FMVSS No. 213 test 
conditions however, the speed would be 8 kmph (5 mph) faster. NHTSA 
also sought comments on using the 48 kmph (30 mph) compliance test as a 
basis for a rating program.
    The proposal was for a 56 kmph (35 mph) sled test using forward-
facing child restraints. The CRS would be installed following the FMVSS 
No. 213 compliance test procedures and would be secured to the FMVSS 
No. 213 bench seat using the lower anchorages and a top tether (LATCH). 
NHTSA proposed that the Hybrid III three-year-old and the 12-month-old 
CRABI dummies be used in this sled-testing program to rate the CRS 
performance. A rating system would be based on two injury criteria: 
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) and chest acceleration. For each child 
dummy tested in a child restraint, the agency would find the combined 
probability of a head and chest injury and provide a star rating for 
that child restraint.
    Child restraints would also be subjected to a physical examination 
after the higher-speed sled test. This examination, as outlined in the 
FMVSS No. 213 testing procedure, would evaluate the structural 
integrity of the child restraint. The agency would make the child 
restraint's star rating available to the public in a manner similar to 
the NCAP vehicle results. Any safety concerns observed during the 
structural integrity evaluation would be noted, but would not affect 
the star rating.

B. Summary of Comments

    This section will summarize the comments received relative to 
rating child restraints based on dynamic sled performance.
1. 48 kmph (30 mph) Sled Test
    Evenflo, Ford, GM, Honda, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(Alliance), Consumers Union (CU), Child Passenger Protection Technical 
Consulting (CPPTC), Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), the National Automobile 
Dealers Association (NADA), and National Safe Kids Campaign favored 
rating child restraints based on a 30 mph dynamic sled test as required 
in FMVSS No. 213. All felt that the current FMVSS No. 213 is a severe 
test, and has done a good job in protecting children. DJG and GM 
further stated that an initial rating of CRS performance based upon the 
current frontal impact requirements of FMVSS No. 213 could give 
consumers some useful information and does have merit. The Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety and CHOP, however, commented that FMVSS No. 
213 is outdated and not representative of real world crashes. The 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety also commented that there would 
only be marginal difference in performance across a wide variety of CRS 
models if FMVSS No. 213 were used as a basis for a rating. 
Nevertheless, all commenters felt that a rating system based on 48 kmph 
(30 mph) sled test should be deferred until FMVSS No. 213 is upgraded 
as required by TREAD.
2. 56 kmph (35 mph) Sled Test
    Some respondents to the notice, including Evenflo, the Alliance, 
JPMA, and CHOP, stated that the FMVSS No. 213 pulse is a very severe 
pulse. They maintained that increasing the speed to 56 kmph (35 mph) 
would not be a helpful indicator of expected performance in most real 
world crashes. They also stated that the majority of real world crashes 
involving children occur at speeds far lower than 56 kmph (35 mph).
    Britax stated that the increased stiffness added to the restraint--
required by the higher crash speeds--would lead to less inherent energy 
absorption by the restraint at lower speeds. Consequently, Britax 
believes that such an approach would pass more harmful energy to the 
children, resulting in more injuries to children in restraints due to 
the greater frequency of crashes at lower speeds.
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, JPMA, Honda, and IIHS 
noted that NHTSA's own study found little discernable difference 
between the child restraint models tested at the higher-speed.
    JPMA, DJG, Child Passenger Protection Technical Consulting, Royal 
Automobile Club of Spain, Honda, and CU supported the agency proposal 
to rate CRS via a 56 kmph (35 mph) sled test. JPMA believed that due to 
the Congressional mandate, a 56 kmph (35 mph) sled test rating had some 
merit due to its objectivity. Honda and DJG supported the higher speed 
sled test, because the agency's early data showed all seats would 
receive ``5 stars.'' DJG later stated that CRS manufacturers could 
focus on the ease of use rating.
3. Test Dummies and Injury Assessment Reference Values
    Several commenters advocated the use of the Hybrid III family of 
dummies and their associated injury criteria. The Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety, GM, Toyota, the Alliance, and CU, all noted that the 
current FMVSS No. 213 still uses the Hybrid II family of dummies and 
not the more up-to-date Hybrid III dummies. GM noted that the

[[Page 67458]]

safety community had developed these dummies to meet the biomechanical 
impact response corridors that were scaled from the mid-size adult male 
to various sizes of child dummies, and that, the dummies' responses to 
forehead impact, neck flexion and extension, and blunt chest impact 
represent the responses of children of similar ages.
    CU, the Alliance, and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety all 
suggested that the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARV's) used for 
the rating program, should be the same as those outlined in the recent 
FMVSS No. 208 rulemaking, published May 12, 2000. These IARV's are 
different than the IARV's currently used in FMVSS No. 213.
    Consumers Union (CU) suggested that child restraints should be 
tested with dummies that weigh the maximum weight specified for the 
restraint. CU said, ``there needs to be some objective, dependable 
assurance that child restraints will provide adequate safety when 
occupied by a child at the weight listed by the manufacturer as the 
maximum safe occupant weight. Two additional pounds can significantly 
increase the kinetic energy of the child in a crash, and as [CU's] 1995 
testing demonstrated, can mean the difference between adequate 
protection and certain danger to that child.'' Ford noted that many 
convertible child restraints are recommended for use in the rear-facing 
direction for children up to 30 and 35 pounds.
4. Testing Procedure
    In the agency's proposed rating, child restraints in the forward-
facing LATCH (including top tether) mode only would be rated. Some 
commenters suggested that child restraints should be rated in more than 
one configuration. Commenters discussed each of these configurations 
and why child restraints should or should not be rated in such 
configurations.
    Safe Ride News suggested that NHTSA rate child restraints both with 
and without top tethers. They stated that both tethered and non-
tethered performance is important. Safe Ride News speculated that 
seeing the difference between tethered and non-tethered performance 
might inspire some consumers to install top tether anchors in their 
older vehicle. Child Passenger Protection Technical Consulting (CPPTC) 
also stated that showing the consumer the effect of a top tether is 
important.
    Several responses favored rating child restraints tested using the 
lap belt instead of lower anchors. Evenflo stated that testing with 
LATCH presupposes that the bulk of the buying public has a new vehicle 
that can fully take advantage of LATCH. The National Safe Kids Campaign 
and the JPMA stated that parents would be securing their child 
restraints with the vehicle seat belts for many years. Toyota and CU 
suggested that NHTSA phase in the use of LATCH for a safety rating. 
They recommended that for the first several years of testing, child 
restraints be rated both by the results of testing with LATCH and by 
the result of testing with the lap belt. This dual testing should 
continue until the majority of cars on the road have LATCH available.
    GM noted that a rating based on child restraints installed with 
LATCH would be of greater value to consumers, as an increasing 
percentage of vehicles become LATCH equipped. GM also said ``testing 
child restraints installed using only LATCH provisions would also 
reduce installation variability that could compromise performance 
assessment results.''
    Honda and Toyota suggested that NHTSA rate rear-facing child 
restraints and the rear-facing mode of convertible seats. Honda 
provided real-world data that suggested fatalities to children in a 
rear-facing seat are as frequent as those in a forward-facing seat. 
Toyota mentioned that new parents might be most likely to seek out 
safety information on a child restraint, and that the agency should 
provide information that would be applicable to their situation. Honda 
speculated that new parents might misinterpret the lack of ratings for 
rear-facing seats to mean that there is no safe rear-facing restraint. 
``Including rear-facing seats would build a rapport with new parents 
who would be more likely to return for information when they are 
searching for a forward-facing seat.''
    The Alliance, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Evenflo, 
GM, the Royal Automobile Club of Spain (RACE), and Toyota suggested 
that NHTSA consider other crash modes for its rating of child 
restraints. These commenters advocated the development of a side impact 
CRS rating program. Evenflo suggested that NHTSA do an investigative 
study of real-world side crashes to learn if child seats protect 
children seated on the struck side of the vehicle. Toyota and GM 
recommended that the agency first adopt a side impact sled test for 
FMVSS No. 213 followed by a CRS rating program for side impacts.
5. Rating System
    Comments were received regarding what injury measures should be 
used for the CRS rating program and whether or not the agency should 
use compliance margin to rate child restraints. Compliance margin is 
defined as the amount by which products go above and beyond the 
requirement of the standard in a compliance test. Four commenters 
specifically addressed compliance margin, and they did not support a 
child restraint rating system based on a compliance margin. The IIHS 
and Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG) argued that no one has proven that an 
increase in compliance margin translates to better overall performance 
in the real world. JPMA also stated that a rating that rewards based on 
the amount of the compliance margin might encourage designs that are 
not optimized for safe performance in the real world. In addition, JPMA 
also stated that a rating system based on compliance margin might not 
provide useful information to consumers because ``it may not 
distinguish among child restraints in a meaningful way.'' Britax 
commented that a compliance margin would not provide meaningful 
information, would not improve safety for children, and would not 
address the real-world vehicle population.
    Comments were also received regarding what injury measures should 
be used for the CRS rating program. HIC and Chest G are currently used 
in the compliance tests and in the frontal NCAP vehicle tests. Toyota 
and the Alliance agreed with NHTSA that HIC and chest acceleration were 
a good basis for computing a child restraint rating. Honda, Safe Ride 
News, CPPTC, and CU suggested that head or knee excursion be added to 
the rating scheme. Compliance tests currently use both head and knee 
excursion to determine if a child restraint passes or fails. Toyota 
recommended that the agency conduct a real-world crash data analysis to 
determine if head contact with the vehicle interior due to head 
excursion is a significant contributor to child injuries. If the 
analysis showed that head excursion is a significant contributor, then 
head excursion should be used as a criterion to rate child restraints 
for dynamic performance.
    Other commenters raised the possibility of including neck injury 
readings to rate child restraints. GM, Toyota, and the Alliance 
advocated the use of some sort of neck injury criteria in the rating 
and not just head and chest injury measures. GM also proposed that 
NHTSA initiate a study of motor vehicle field crash data better to 
quantify the extent of neck trauma in restrained children. Such a study 
``should determine the crash severity level(s) at which neck injury 
begins to occur.''

[[Page 67459]]

    JPMA submitted comments opposing the use of head excursion for 
rating a child restraint's dynamic performance. They stated, though no 
specific examples were given that, ``other performance attributes 
measured in FMVSS No. 213 tests, such as head excursion, should not be 
included [in the rating system] because doing so could lead to 
unintended adverse consequences.''

C. Analysis of Comments

1. 48 kmph (30 mph) Sled Test
    Evenflo, Ford, GM, Honda, the Alliance, CU, CPPTC, JPMA, DJG, NADA, 
and National Safe Kids Campaign stated that if a rating system must be 
developed, a rating system based on an a 48 kmph (30 mph) FMVSS No. 213 
sled test would be beneficial and prudent. All felt that the FMVSS No. 
213 is a severe test and has done a good job protecting children. 
However, all commenters felt that the agency should delay the 
implementation of the rating until the proposed bench and pulse 
upgrades for FMVSS No. 213 are implemented. The agency agrees with the 
commenters that FMVSS No. 213 has ensured good safety protection for 
children. In addition, we acknowledge the commenters concerns that 
concurrent with the CRS rating, TREAD also mandates an upgrade to FMVSS 
No. 213. The upgrade to FMVSS No. 213 is a separate rulemaking effort 
that is mandated to be completed by November 1, 2002. The fundamental 
issue raised by the commenters is that since requirements and lead-time 
schedules for the FMVSS No. 213 upgrade will not be finalized prior to 
implementation of the CRS rating system, child seats would be evaluated 
according to their performance under the new requirements before those 
new requirements were final and had been explained in a notice. We 
agree that a CRS rating system based upon an upgraded FMVSS No. 213 
should not occur until after any such changes to the standard have 
become effective. For this reason, we will perform a pilot program to 
evaluate the dynamic performance of child restraints. This pilot 
program will gather data in 2003 and 2004 and be based on the changes 
proposed in the FMVSS No. 213 rulemaking. In 2005, assuming the pilot 
program shows that the results could be used as useful consumer 
information, we expect full implementation of a rating program with a 
test procedure based on the finalized FMVSS No. 213.
2. 56 kmph (35 mph) Sled Test
    Evenflo, the Alliance, CHOP and JPMA stated that increasing the 
test speed of FMVSS No. 213 an additional 8 kmph (5 mph) would not 
provide any additional information. We disagree with the commenters on 
this issue. Prior to issuing the notice on November 6, 2001, the agency 
conducted sled tests at both 48 kmph (30 mph) and 56 kmph (35 mph). 
These sled tests were based on the FMVSS No. 213 pulse. In those tests, 
we found that CRS dummy measurement responses had a greater dispersion 
when tested at the higher speed.
    In addition, the commenters further stated that most real world 
crashes involving children occur at speeds less than 56 kmph (35 mph). 
The agency also analyzed 1988-2000 National Automotive Sampling System 
(NASS) Crashworthiness Data System. We looked at non-rollover, frontal 
crashes involving light vehicles where a child restraint was involved. 
The data was not further defined by age. The NASS data showed that 97% 
of the crashes involving a child restraint occurred at speeds less than 
56 kmph (35 mph) compared to 94% at speed less than 48 kmph (30 mph). 
The agency recognizes the fact that most crashes occur at speeds less 
than 56 kmph (35 mph) and speeds less than 48 kmph (30 mph). This is 
also true for the adult population. However, the majority of adult 
fatal crashes occur at speeds of 48 kmph (30 mph) and greater. 
Unfortunately, we have insufficient data to know the velocity 
distribution of fatal CRS crashes.
    DJG commented that a higher speed sled test would cause 
manufacturers to stiffen up the CRS to avoid structural failure of the 
CRS in the sled tests. The commenter hypothesized that a stiffer seat 
could have a negative influence on children in crashes at lower speeds. 
The agency is not aware of any data that would support the DJG 
assertion that stiffer child seats would have a negative influence on 
restrained children in lower crash velocities. In higher speed sled 
testing, the agency has observed some structural failures. Thus, we 
agree that CRS manufacturers would have to provide structural 
modifications to the seat. However, we do not have any quantification 
of the relative influence of the shell versus webbing stiffness, and 
believe that the structural stiffness of the seat shell would have 
considerably less influence on the overall occupant response 
measurements than the webbing material.
3. Test Dummies and Injury Assessment Reference Values
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, GM, Toyota, the 
Alliance, and Consumer's Union advocated the use of the more biofidelic 
Hybrid III family of dummies, the CRABI dummy, and their associated 
injury criteria. FMVSS No. 213 currently uses the Hybrid II three-year-
old child dummy, Hybrid II six-year-old child dummy, and the TNO non-
instrumented, nine-month-old child dummy. The agency recognizes that 
the Hybrid III and CRABI child dummies are more biofidelic and have 
greater instrumentation capabilities than the Hybrid II dummy family. 
This was one of the primary reasons the agency proposed the CRABI and 
the Hybrid III dummy family, as an upgrade to FMVSS No. 213 and for the 
CRS dynamic rating.
    However, the agency is also aware that only Hybrid II dummies have 
been used to date in NHTSA compliance tests for FMVSS No. 213. In 
addition, CRS manufacturers do not have any substantial experience 
testing child seats with Hybrid III dummies. NHTSA believes it is 
appropriate to take the time to run tests with the Hybrid III dummies, 
and make regulatory decisions about when to mandate use of the newer 
dummies as opposed to using the new dummies in a CRS rating program 
tests. Hence, NHTSA intends to conduct a pilot program in 2003 and 2004 
using the test dummies proposed in the FMVSS No. 213 upgrade.
4. Testing Procedure
    In the notice published November 6, 2001, the agency proposed to 
rate CRS in LATCH mode only. Safe Ride News, National Safe Kids 
Campaign, JPMA, Toyota and CU suggested that NHTSA use additional 
configurations in addition to LATCH to rate child restraints. NHTSA 
acknowledges that there are many vehicles being used today that do not 
have a top tether anchor and LATCH attachment for a child seat. 
However, beginning September 1, 2002, all child restraints and all 
vehicles manufactured will be required to have LATCH. Vehicles 
manufactured after September 1, 2000 are all required to have a top 
tether. The agency has performed several tests comparing tether and no-
tether seats. These test results have shown that a tether decreases 
head excursion in addition to lowering HIC values. NHTSA tests have 
also shown that HIC and chest acceleration readings from child 
restraints tested with LATCH are similar to those tested with the lap 
belt and tether. The agency, however, must also consider the vehicle 
fleet. It will

[[Page 67460]]

take some time before the entire vehicle fleet will be equipped with 
lower anchorages and top tether, and we feel that consumers should have 
information on both LATCH and non-LATCH configurations. Therefore, the 
pilot program will examine and evaluate the LATCH and lap belt/tether 
configuration performance.
    The Alliance, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Evenflo, 
GM, the Royal Automobile Club of Spain (RACE), and Toyota suggested 
that NHTSA include a side impact program to rate CRS. NHTSA agrees that 
the available data indicates that side impact represents a substantial 
portion of the total harm to children in crashes. Because of this, we 
are currently researching the dynamic performance of child restraints 
in crash modes other than a frontal crash. In response to the TREAD 
Act, NHTSA issued an ANPRM for side impact. Depending on the results of 
that research, we will consider whether we should rate CRS performance 
in a side impact configuration after this research is completed.
5. Rating System
    Four commenters specifically addressed the use of compliance margin 
to rate child restraints. Because it would be easy to implement, the 
cost would be minimal, and it could provide meaningful information, the 
agency proposal listed compliance margin as an option for rating child 
restraints. A compliance margin rating would rate child restraints 
based on how much better they performed than required by the standard. 
In the notice, the agency showed that many seats passed by a large 
margin. This was true for both HIC and Chest G. Contrary to HIC and 
Chest G, the agency found head and knee excursion close to their 
respective limits set forth in the standard. However, the agency does 
not have a probability of injury risk curve for head or knee excursion. 
Of those commenters that specifically addressed compliance margin, none 
agreed with the premise of using it as the basis for a rating program. 
IIHS argued that there was no correlation between the margins of 
compliance a particular CRS seat had and its performance in the real 
world. We disagree with the commenter. The risk of injury is derived 
from human tolerance data. Just as injury numbers above the minimum 
standard correlate to an increased risk of injury, injury measures 
below the minimum level correlate to a lower risk of injury. IIHS 
further commented that it would be difficult for the agency to 
determine if a seat that passes the HIC requirement by 60% is safer 
than one that passes by 50%. As noted above, a seat that passes by a 
60% compliance margin is safer than one with a 50% margin. However, we 
agree with IIHS that the magnitude of this difference would be small 
and it would be difficult to quantify precisely.
    JPMA argued that a child restraint is a system, and that focusing 
on one or two parameters could adversely affect others. JPMA stated 
that manufacturers, for example, could get a wide compliance margin on 
head excursion, but that would increase the accelerations experienced 
by the head (HIC). We understand that system modifications to reduce 
one parameter could adversely affect other parameters with safety 
trade-offs. However, manufacturers would still have to meet the head 
excursion requirement for FMVSS No. 213. We feel that the head 
excursion limit in FMVSS No. 213 would prevent the manufacturers from 
taking such an approach.
    JPMA also argued that if the agency used compliance margin to rate 
a CRS the agency would have to choose and rate the ``more important'' 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213. That is, is knee excursion 
more important than chest G? On this point, the agency also agrees with 
the commenter and also stated this fact in the notice. We agree that it 
would be difficult to choose what factor(s) among the many are most 
important and convey the information to the public.
    For these reasons and as indicated in the notice, the agency 
believes that the use of compliance margin (i.e. rating seats on how 
close or far from the compliance limit the injury measures are) does 
not appear to be the most meaningful way to rate child safety seats. We 
will consider this further during our pilot program.
    Comments were also received regarding what metrics should be used 
in the rating system. Toyota and the Alliance agreed with the agency 
that HIC and chest acceleration were a good basis for computing a child 
restraint rating. However, Honda, Toyota, Safe Ride News, JPMA, and 
Child Passenger Protection Technical Consulting suggested that head 
and/or knee excursion should be added to the rating scheme. The agency 
agrees that head and knee excursion limits in FMVSS No. 213 protect 
children from striking the vehicle's interior. However, HIC and chest 
acceleration can more easily be correlated to probability of injury 
than head and knee excursion. None of the commenters provided specific 
suggestions on how to incorporate head and knee excursions into a 
rating system. In addition, by developing the rating system based on 
HIC and chest acceleration, the agency can follow the same approach 
that is used for the adult dummies in the frontal NCAP. Therefore, 
NHTSA will not incorporate head and knee excursions into a safety 
rating for child restraints, but plans to use HIC and chest 
acceleration.
    GM, Toyota, and the Alliance advocated the use of some sort of neck 
injury criteria in the rating and not just head and chest injury 
measures. GM also proposed that NHTSA initiate a study of motor vehicle 
field crash data better to quantify the extent of neck trauma in 
restrained children. Such a study ``should determine the crash severity 
level(s) at which neck injury begins to occur.'' The agency agrees that 
neck injuries for children in the field need to be examined and will 
therefore utilize several sources both inside and outside the agency 
like NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations and the Children's Hospital 
of Pennsylvania to assess neck injuries in children. The agency is also 
assessing the need to include neck injury criteria in frontal NCAP star 
ratings.

D. NHTSA's Decision on a CRS Dynamic Rating Program

    In the notice published November 6, 2001, the agency suggested a 56 
kmph (35 mph) sled test to rate child restraints. The 56 kmph (35 mph) 
option specified that the agency would rate child restraints based on 
sled tests performed in accordance with the FMVSS No. 213 standard, but 
at a speed 8 kmph (5 mph) faster than the standard specifies. It was 
proposed that these 56 kmph (35 mph) sled tests would be conducted 
using the three-year-old Hybrid III dummy and the 12-month-old CRABI 
dummy to assess CRS performance as it relates to head injury and chest 
acceleration. However, many respondents voiced concerns of using a 56 
kmph (35 mph) FMVSS No. 213 crash pulse to rate child restraints, and 
most suggested a rating program be deferred until FMVSS No. 213 is 
upgraded as required by TREAD.
    NHTSA shares the concerns raised by commenters, and agrees that a 
dynamic CRS rating should be deferred until incorporation of the FMVSS 
No. 213 upgrades required by TREAD. Another option that we seriously 
considered was to develop a dynamic CRS rating using the current FMVSS 
No. 213 with the Hybrid II dummies. However, the current standard does 
not have an instrumented dummy for rear facing infant seats, meaning 
that a dynamic rating would be limited to only forward facing CRS for 
3-year-old and 6-year-old children. We believe that consumers

[[Page 67461]]

would have an equally high, if not higher, interest in obtaining 
dynamic rating information for rear facing infant seats, and that an 
inability to provide ratings for this segment of CRSs would cause a 
great deal of confusion for consumers.
    Furthermore, NHTSA has other concerns with providing a dynamic CRS 
rating at this time. In considering development of a dynamic rating 
using the current standard, we found that all child restraints would 
have received either a four or five star rating. This is consistent 
with the finding from field studies showing that CRSs, when used and 
used properly, are very effective in providing protection to children. 
Given that all CRS would receive either a four or five star rating, we 
have concerns that such a dynamic rating would not be meaningful to 
consumers.
    Another concern is that in addition to facing potential upgrades to 
FMVSS No. 213 as required by TREAD, CRS manufacturers have also been 
recently required to incorporate LATCH into all CRS. Further burdening 
these manufacturers with a dynamic rating using the older Hybrid II 
dummies while the manufacturers are modifying their designs to account 
for the possible use of newer dummies would be a diversion with no 
apparent safety benefit.
    In consideration of the above, NHTSA has decided not to implement a 
dynamic component to the CRS rating at this time, but rather to rely 
upon the Ease of Use rating to satisfy the TREAD mandate. As noted 
previously, the agency has published an NPRM to upgrade FMVSS No. 213. 
The agency plans to conduct a pilot dynamic test program in 2003 and 
2004 using the test seat assembly, test dummies and IARV's as proposed 
in the upgraded FMVSS No. 213 and adopted by the agency in its final 
rule pertaining to that rulemaking.
    We believe the performance of the CRS in a dynamic test is an 
important and meaningful part of an overall rating of child safety. If 
our pilot program goes as anticipated, we will go forward in 2005 with 
a consumer information program for the dynamic rating of child 
restraint systems. We will re-notice this program to define the test 
procedures, test dummies, configurations and IARV's for that consumer 
information program.
    The dynamic pilot test program for CRS will be conducted at the 48 
kmph (30 mph) test speed and in accordance with the upgraded FMVSS No. 
213 test procedures adopted by the agency. The pilot program will use 
the 12-month-old CRABI, the Hybrid III three-year-old, and the Hybrid 
III six-year-old child dummies. Lower anchorages and top tethers (if 
provided) will be used to restrain all child seats. In addition, we 
will also use a lap belt only configuration (no tether) [or (with 
tether)] for all these seats. The results of this pilot program will be 
made available only as research, and no ratings will be assigned to any 
of the tested CRS.

V. Vehicle Rating System for Child Protection

A. Summary of Proposal

    The TREAD Act specified that the agency consider ``whether to 
include child restraints in each vehicle crash tested under the New Car 
Assessment Program'' [14(b)(9)], and to ``issue a final rule 
establishing a child restraint safety rating program and providing 
other consumer information which the Secretary determines would be 
useful [to] consumers who purchase child restraint systems.'' 
Therefore, in addition to the child restraint rating system, the agency 
proposed a program that would rate new vehicles based on their 
protection of child passengers when restrained in a CRS in the rear 
seat when in a frontal crash.
    Under this proposed vehicle rating system, the agency would ask 
vehicle manufacturers for a recommendation of at least three forward-
facing child restraints. We would require that (1) at least one of the 
recommended child restraints have a retail price of less than $60 and 
(2) a different CRS manufacturer make each of the three restraints. The 
agency would choose one of these three CRS to use in the NCAP frontal 
crash for child protection.
    We proposed to place the forward-facing child restraint on the 
vehicle seat directly behind the right front passenger. A 3-year-old 
Hybrid III dummy would be placed in the child restraint system. After 
the vehicle crash, a five star rating would be applied to the vehicle 
based on HIC and chest G values measured by the child dummy. Risk 
curves would be developed based on the injury assessment reference 
values developed for child dummies in FMVSS No. 208. Under this 
proposed rating system, in addition to the two ratings now provided 
based upon the performance of the driver and the right front passenger, 
the subject vehicle would receive one additional rating for the child 
dummy in the rear occupant seat.
    Finally, after each vehicle crash test, we proposed to examine the 
child restraint for structural integrity. We would conduct the physical 
evaluation for structural integrity specified in the test procedure of 
FMVSS No. 213.

B. Summary of Comments

    This section summarizes the comments that addressed the rating of 
vehicles based on child restraint performance. Of the nineteen 
commenters to the notice, sixteen specifically addressed the proposed 
vehicle rating system.
    Britax, Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), 
SAFEKIDS, and Evenflo suggested that CRS performance depends on vehicle 
performance. They agreed that NHTSA's research showed that CRS 
performance varies significantly with vehicle crashworthiness design, 
including such factors as vehicle stiffness, rear seat detail, and belt 
configuration. GM and National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) 
also suggested that vehicle weight influences CRS performance. Child 
Passenger Protection Technical Consulting (CPPTC) also voiced a concern 
that rating a child restraint based on how well it performs in a 
vehicle is not a feasible method, due to the significant influence of 
vehicle performance as shown in Euro NCAP.
    JPMA explained that child seat companies are typically small-scale 
companies compared to the vehicle manufacturers. Most child seat 
companies do not have the resources to do expensive vehicle testing to 
design better child seats. They said, ``* * * child restraint 
manufacturers can't reasonably conduct tests that would predict NHTSA's 
ratings under an NCAP-based system, because NHTSA (or the vehicle 
manufacturer) could choose to place any child restraint in any motor 
vehicle, and child restraint manufacturers could not reasonably or 
feasibly conduct crash tests. * * *''
    NADA said that not all child restraints would be tested if NHTSA 
were to evaluate child restraints in vehicle testing. They further 
explained that this condition would be an unfair and incomplete test 
because not all child restraints would be subjected to the same 
conditions. Testing every child restraint in every vehicle would result 
in a great many tests. NADA also expressed concern that testing child 
restraints in NCAP vehicles would ignore the fact that most child seats 
are bought for use in used vehicles. Dorel, CU, Alliance, GM, JPMA, and 
Advocates also supported this view. Honda said that under the proposed 
rating system; child restraints with poor performance would never be 
tested in vehicle testing because vehicle manufacturers would never 
select those CRSs.

[[Page 67462]]

    IIHS said rating child restraints in vehicle testing would not 
advance world harmonization. IIHS advised that, based on Australian 
NCAP and Euro NCAP rating programs, rating child seats in vehicles had 
many disadvantages. They said, ``* * *One is that, because so few 
vehicles are tested and only one or two restraints can be installed for 
each test, the tests can provide useful information for only a small 
number of vehicle/child restraint combinations. * * *''
    The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Child Passenger 
Protection Technical Consulting (CPPTC) suggested that the agency 
examine head and knee excursion in vehicle testing due to variability 
in vehicle interior design. CPPTC said, ``Head excursion is the most 
important criterion for forward-facing child restraints, as it 
indicates overall structural integrity and how well the restraint is 
likely to keep the child's head out of harm's way.'' They suggested 
that evaluating head excursion is more important than evaluating chest 
acceleration. CPPTC said field data confirm that contact head injury is 
the most common type of serious injury among restrained children.
    Honda, Toyota, and Advocates said rear-facing mode child restraints 
and booster seats should also be rated. Advocates interpreted that 
TREAD mandates NHTSA to rate all CRS types, not just forward-facing 
restraints. Honda declared that, since NHTSA understands that many 
fatalities are occurring to restrained children less than three years 
of age, the agency also has to evaluate rear-facing child restraints. 
Toyota said most new parents are likely to look for information on 
rear-facing seats. Such information should be made available. If NHTSA 
were to provide this information, Toyota explains that those parents 
would be more educated about child safety seats and would eventually 
seek more information on the safety of child seats.
    Several CRS manufacturers and consumer advocates suggested that 
testing child restraints in vehicles would be beneficial. Evenflo and 
ARCCA, Inc. said that adding CRS to vehicle testing would be beneficial 
in understanding how child restraints are influenced by vehicle 
crashworthiness. In addition, ARCCA, Inc. favors the incorporation of 
child restraints into NCAP tests. ARCCA stated that NCAP tests more 
closely replicate real world conditions than the FMVSS No. 213 
compliance tests.
    CHOP, CU, and Advocates said that performing CRS in-vehicle testing 
is good for future research on improving child occupant safety. CHOP 
commented that, ``* * * including child restraints in NCAP tests is 
important to build a fund of knowledge. This will lead to a better 
understanding of the interaction of various child restraints with the 
various types of vehicles, their space, and seat stiffness.'' Advocates 
added that conducting vehicle testing with child seats would provide 
important information such as CRS and vehicle seat interaction and 
assessment of head and knee excursion in vehicle crashes. They 
suggested that such information would be extremely valuable for 
prospective car buyers, especially for parents who transport their 
young children.

C. Analysis of Comments

    Most of the commenters generally disagreed with rating child 
restraints in vehicle testing. We agree with these comments that 
vehicle tests would not be an appropriate means of rating CRS 
performance. The notice indicated that the agency felt ``the most 
effective consumer information system is one that gives the consumer a 
combination of information about child restraints' ease of use and 
dynamic performance, with the dynamic performance obtained through 
higher speed sled testing and/or in-vehicle NCAP testing.'' In 
describing the proposal for CRS performance in NCAP frontal vehicle 
testing, the notice said that ``unlike the rating systems proposed for 
the sled tests * * *, this option would rate the vehicle equipped with 
a CRS as a system in protecting the child.''
    CHOP and CPPTC comments suggested that head and knee excursion are 
important parameters to monitor due to variability in vehicle interior 
designs. While we agree that this is true, we do not believe that these 
parameters are the most critical measurements to be made. Excursion of 
the child within the vehicle compartment, along with the available 
interior space, will determine whether the child strikes an interior 
component of the vehicle compartment. Indeed, to maximize child 
protection and reduce the average head acceleration, the optimal design 
is a system that maximizes head excursion without permitting a head 
strike on an interior component. However, the space within the 
compartment is limited. The HIC measurement would show whether the 
dummy's head struck an interior component. Thus, for built-in seats, 
head excursion is not measured in FMVSS No. 213, since HIC reflects 
head contact events. For built-in seats, HIC by itself provides a 
measure of both excursion and available compartment space.
    The agency does not fully agree with the IIHS comments about in-
vehicle testing not being suited for world harmonization. As indicated 
above, the agency does not believe that in-vehicle testing is an 
appropriate test for rating the CRS alone. To the extent that the IIHS 
comments were meant to reflect that point, we agree. However, both the 
Euro NCAP and Australian NCAP program vehicle ratings incorporate the 
vehicle's ability to protect CRS restrained children. Since the 
proposed in-vehicle rating would also provide such an indication, we 
believe that, in this respect, the proposed vehicle rating for child 
protection in frontal testing would be similar to the Euro NCAP and 
Australian NCAP ratings.
    Finally, Honda, Toyota, and Advocates suggested that rear-facing 
CRS and booster seats should also be rated. As indicated above, we do 
not believe that in-vehicle testing is appropriate for rating the CRS. 
Rather, the in-vehicle test rates the vehicle's contribution to 
protecting the restrained child in a crash. We concur with the 
commenters desire to have the vehicle rating reflect the protection 
afforded to children restrained in child restraints in addition to 
forward facing child seats. We will examine the feasibility of this in 
the pilot program described below.

D. NHTSA's Decision on a Vehicle Rating System for Child Protection

    As indicated in the November 6, 2001, notice, optimal child 
protection requires that the child be properly placed in an appropriate 
restraint, that the CRS perform well, and that the vehicle work in 
concert with the CRS to protect the restrained child. In the notice, 
the agency presented an analysis of results of both dynamic sled and 
in-vehicle CRS testing. The dynamic sled testing showed tighter 
clustering of the CRS responses than observed in the vehicle tests. We 
inferred that the greater range of HIC response in the vehicle tests 
was not due to the child restraint, but was due to vehicle crash 
characteristics, such as crash pulse, belt geometry (important for 
child restraints that use a lap/shoulder belt), seat contour, and seat 
cushion stiffness. A vehicle with good crashworthiness characteristics 
appeared to provide better child occupant protection independent of the 
CRS.
    Occupant protection fundamentals require that the vehicle 
restraints and dynamic crash characteristics operate as a system to 
provide energy management for optimal protection of the occupant. For 
children, the CRS and vehicle must

[[Page 67463]]

work together as a complete system to protect the child. To accomplish 
this, CRS and vehicle manufacturers must work together to ensure that 
an optimal design of the CRS/vehicle system is developed for maximum 
child protection. Consumers wishing to select the best protection 
systems available for their children need to have not only a rating of 
the CRS, but also a rating of the CRS/vehicle system. We believe this 
was the intent of the TREAD mandate that the agency consider ``whether 
to include child restraints in each vehicle crash tested under the New 
Car Assessment Program,'' and to ``provide other consumer information 
which the Secretary determines would be useful [to] consumers who 
purchase child restraint systems.''
    Given this, NHTSA anticipates that, in addition to providing a 
rating of child restraint systems, we will try to rate vehicles on 
their ability to protect child occupants in a frontal crash. We 
proposed an approach for rating vehicles for crash protection for 
children in the notice, with an additional star rating to be added to 
the vehicle's NCAP score. The additional star rating would be based 
upon the likelihood that a CRS restrained child occupant would receive 
severe (AIS =4) injuries in a frontal crash.
    Notwithstanding this belief, however, NHTSA is concerned that it is 
premature to begin assigning NCAP ratings to vehicles at this time. We 
are aware of little testing in the public domain to assess the 
vehicles' role in protecting child occupants in the rear seats. 
Further, we have not finished our analysis of the results of our 
testing to date, which showed that some vehicles that provide good 
front seat occupant protection provide relatively poor rear seat 
occupant protection. We would prefer to gather more information on 
vehicles with child seats in the rear, do a thorough analysis of the 
results, and publish our conclusions to allow a public review before we 
implement a ratings program in this area.
    To gather additional information and a better understanding of what 
vehicle attributes contribute to good rear seat occupant protection, 
NHTSA will collect data during the 2003 and 2004 model year NCAP 
frontal crash tests on child protection in the rear seat, but will not 
publish any child protection vehicle ratings based on that testing. 
During the 2003 and 2004 model years, the agency will select a range of 
seats to be used and final selection will be based on a set of 
objective criteria yet to be developed.
    Using a single forward-facing seat also leads us to plan to use a 
single test dummy (the Hybrid III three-year-old) to allow comparisons 
among the vehicles, and to make those comparisons reflect the 
difference in vehicle performance. NHTSA believes that vehicle 
performance with the three-year old in a forward-facing seat will be 
representative of the vehicles' ability to provide child occupant 
protection for other sizes and ages of children in other CRS, including 
rear-facing and booster seats. However, we will gather data to verify 
or disprove this belief during the pilot program. Specifically, we will 
continue to use the additional rear seating positions to collect data 
for research purposes on the performance of various size dummies in 
rear-facing, booster, and built-in CRS. Should we proceed as we 
currently expect, we will add the element of rear seat child protection 
to frontal NCAP beginning in the 2005 model year. We will publish a 
notice to get public comments on the test procedures and rating 
criteria, including what size or sizes of child dummies should be used 
for the rating.

VI. Combined Child Restraint Rating

A. Summary of Proposal

    In the proposal, NHTSA stated that we were not currently planning 
to do an overall summary rating combining ease of use and dynamic 
performance. The agency had not been able to develop an acceptable 
methodology for a summary rating. We requested comments and suggestions 
on this issue.

B. Summary of Comments

    General Motors and JPMA commented that they did not support a 
combined rating system. Toyota proposed a combined rating concept that 
included injury criteria, head excursion and ease of correct use. 
Toyota believes that a combined rating could help parents select safer 
child restraints. Consumers Union supports a combined ease of use and 
dynamic testing rating system and also proposed one. They included 
recommendations for arriving at a single summary rating. They also 
recommended a numerical procedure to convert individual ratings to a 
continuous scale that was then converted to an overall star rating.

C. NHTSA Will Not Combine Rating

    NHTSA reviewed the comments received. While the agency believes a 
combined rating may have merit, we believe that further evaluation into 
the methodology would be needed. In addition, subsequent to the 
proposed Notice, NHTSA conducted focus groups and found that most 
participants did not want a rating that combined performance and ease 
of use. They mentioned that they usually like more information to be 
available and that a combined rating might be misleading. Also, given 
the factors described in Section IV.D, we have decided to continue 
dynamic testing of CRS on a pilot basis rather than providing dynamic 
ratings at this time. Based on these factors NHTSA will not have a 
combined rating.

VII. Distribution and Schedule

A. Summary of Proposal

    In the Notice published on November 6, 2001, NHTSA discussed the 
two publications that are produced related to safety ratings for 
vehicles and vehicle safety features specific to children. One 
publication is a print brochure titled Buying a Safer Car that provides 
NCAP ratings and safety feature information for new vehicles. The other 
is a brochure titled Buying a Safer Car for Child Passengers that 
provides new vehicle safety features and other information relevant to 
children.
    The agency also stated that we believe new printed information 
about child restraint ratings would be needed. Unlike vehicles, child 
restraint models do not tend to change on an annual cycle, therefore, 
NHTSA would have to pick a date and only include in a print brochure 
child restraints that are available in the marketplace at that time. 
The Notice also indicated that in Canada the largest concentration of 
child restraints were introduced in the months of May and June. We 
requested comments on whether this timing was also accurate for the 
United States.
    Lastly, in the Notice, NHTSA noted that a print brochure could be 
used in addition to our Web site. The Web site can be updated on a 
continuous basis. Therefore, we could test child restraints as they 
become available and add new models to the Web site when testing is 
complete.

B. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA did not receive any comments on whether the timing, May and 
June, for the introduction of a large concentration of child restraints 
on the market was accurate. The National SAFE KIDS Campaign did voice 
their concern about releasing timely information to consumers. They 
suggested that to do this, child restraints would need to be rated 
prior to being placed on retail shelves.
    In addition to seeking comments on the accuracy of when child 
restraints are introduced into the marketplace, NHTSA conducted 
research aimed at exploring the perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and 
attitudes of parents and

[[Page 67464]]

caregivers regarding our Proposed Ease of Use Rating and the 
Performance Rating for child safety seats (see Section III C for full 
summary of focus group findings). Relative to how this ratings program 
is presented to and would be received and used by consumers, we found 
that overall most participants said that ratings influence their 
decision-making process when making a purchase. Also, respondents 
overwhelmingly preferred the use of stars to rate the seats. Specific 
to ease of use ratings, most participants preferred the chart that 
included the ease of use criteria. They explained that they liked 
having as much information as possible, and because they valued some 
criteria over others, seeing all the individual ratings was more 
helpful. Also, most reacted positively to the use of a letter grade 
scale for the Ease of Use Rating because it differentiated the Ease of 
Use Rating from the Performance Rating. Specific to the performance 
rating, many believed that it was more important than the Ease of Use 
Rating. However, many said that they wanted more information on how the 
ratings are derived. Participants stated that a brochure should include 
information on different harness types, price ranges of individual 
seats, and explanations of the tests that are done when a seat is 
rated. Respondents also said that the brochure should use color and 
graphics and text should be in a bullet-point format.

C. Rating and Distribution Plan

    NHTSA agrees with the National SAFE KIDS Campaign in that timing of 
information is an important element of the ratings program. Also of 
importance is how this information is presented to the consumer. After 
considering the comment received and the focus group findings, NHTSA's 
rating and distribution plan is as follows:
    [sbull] NHTSA plans to obtain child restraints from the 
manufacturer and begin rating them before they are available to the 
public. The process for doing this will be similar to how NHTSA 
receives child restraints from the manufacturers for compliance 
testing. A letter will be sent to the manufacturers requesting a list 
of new child restraints that will be introduced into the marketplace. 
NHTSA will also request these seats be shipped to a designated testing 
location. NHTSA plans to conduct testing and evaluations beginning this 
fall and publish a print brochure in the spring of 2003. From 
discussions with manufacturers and retailers, early spring is a 
transition time for stocking retail shelves with new child restraints.
    [sbull] The brochure will provide explanatory information to 
consumers as well as have charts listing the ratings of child safety 
seats. The brochure will list child seats by type: (1) Infant only, (2) 
convertible, (3) forward facing only, (4) combination forward facing 
booster, and (5) booster, followed by their ratings. NHTSA may include 
additional information about the child restraint such as harness type, 
weight ranges for the restraint, etc. NHTSA already has on its Web 
site, a listing of child restraints with features and will be 
considering combining this information with the ratings in print and on 
the Web site.
    [sbull] There will be several ratings listed for each child 
restraint. Each ease of use category (there are 5) as well as an 
overall ease of use score will be listed. Also in 2005, we anticipate 
that each restraint will also have star ratings from the dynamic tests. 
Because multimode child restraints will be rated in each mode it is 
recommended for use, one seat may have 16 total ratings. For example, a 
convertible child restraint will have six ease of use ratings (5 
categories and 1 overall) for rear-facing and the same amount for 
forward-facing, for a total of 12. The convertible seat will also have 
two dynamic tests for each mode for a total of four. Refer to Table 1 
in the November 6, 2001, Notice to see the testing protocol for each 
type of restraint.
    [sbull] The brochure, which will be updated on annual basis, will 
be posted on the NHTSA Web site as well as distributed through our 
outreach mechanisms (e.g., Regional offices, State Highway Safety 
Offices, National Organizations, etc.).
    [sbull] Following initial publication of the print brochure, 
throughout the remainder of the year (until October), NHTSA will 
continue to rate any new child restraints that will be introduced into 
the market. Following our rating, the results will be posted on the Web 
site as well as announced through a press release.

VIII. Conclusion

    In response to the TREAD Act, NHTSA has decided to establish a 
consumer information program for add on child restraints based on their 
ease of use. We believe that this consumer information program will 
encourage child restraint manufacturers to produce child restraints 
with features that make it easier for consumers to use and install, 
thereby, leading to increased correct use of child restraints and 
increased safety for child passengers. Secondly, we believe that child 
protection is a systems approach. It involves both the child restraint 
manufacturer and the vehicle manufacturer. We feel that consumers would 
value information from both of these entities. Therefore, we have 
decided to perform two pilot programs to gather additional information 
about these two aspects of child passenger safety. One pilot program 
will subject child restraints to a 48 kmph (30 mph) sled test under the 
same test conditions as a proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. 213. The second 
pilot program will continue to include child restraints in the frontal 
crashes of our New Car Assessment Program. We will collect information 
from these two pilot programs in 2003 and 2004 and not publish the 
results as consumer information. At the conclusion of the pilot 
programs, and if analyses of the pilot program show this would be 
meaningful consumer information, the agency will seek public comments 
on a proposal for full implementation of the rating of vehicles for 
child protection and the dynamic child restraint test to commence in 
Model Year 2005. (By Model Year 2005, we mean October 2004 to coincide 
with the commencement of the Fiscal Year 2005 New Car Assessment 
Program). We believe this consumer information will enable prospective 
purchasers to make better, informed choices about new child restraints 
and passenger vehicles.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 
30166, and 30168, and Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: October 29, 2002.
Noble N. Bowie,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 67465]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.001


[[Page 67466]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.002


[[Page 67467]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.003


[[Page 67468]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.004


[[Page 67469]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.005


[[Page 67470]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.006


[[Page 67471]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.007


[[Page 67472]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.008


[[Page 67473]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.009


[[Page 67474]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.010


[[Page 67475]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.011


[[Page 67476]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.012


[[Page 67477]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.013


[[Page 67478]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.014


[[Page 67479]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.015


[[Page 67480]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.016


[[Page 67481]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.017


[[Page 67482]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.018


[[Page 67483]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.019


[[Page 67484]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.020


[[Page 67485]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.021


[[Page 67486]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.022


[[Page 67487]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.023


[[Page 67488]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.024


[[Page 67489]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.025


[[Page 67490]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05NO02.026

[FR Doc. 02-27997 Filed 10-31-02; 2:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C