[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10637-10664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4212]



[[Page 10637]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket NHTSA-2010-00062]


Consumer Information; Program for Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On April 24, 2009, DOT announced that NHTSA would establish a 
new consumer information program, as part of the New Car Assessment 
Program, to help caregivers find a child restraint system (``child 
safety seat'') that fits their vehicle. Under the program, NHTSA will 
make available information from vehicle manufacturers as to the 
specific child safety seats the manufacturers recommend for individual 
vehicles. This document primarily details observations from an agency 
pilot study conducted to determine reasonable conditions for 
participation in such a program. It also proposes a set of forms 
comprised of objective criteria which vehicle manufacturers can use to 
identify child safety seats that fit their vehicles. The agency 
anticipates that this program will make it easier for caregivers to 
select a child safety seat that fits in their vehicle.

DATES: Comments should be submitted early enough to ensure that they 
are received no later than March 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number above and be 
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 1-202-493-
2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting 
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the 
Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section 
of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.
     Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form 
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues related to the 
Vehicle-Child Restraint System (CRS) Fit program, you may contact Ms. 
Jennifer N. Dang, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 202-
493-0598). For legal issues, you may contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office 
of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992). You may send mail to these 
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. The Current Child Safety Problem
IV. NHTSA's CRS Activities
V. Addressing Vehicle-CRS Compatibility
    A. Consumer Information
    B. LATCH
VI. Considerations for Development of a New Consumer Information 
Program To Address Vehicle-CRS Compatibility
VII. Review of Worldwide Child Restraint Consumer Information 
Programs
VIII. Conditions for Participation, Program Administration, and 
Distribution
    A. Conditions for Participation in the Vehicle-CRS Fit Program
    B. Program Administration
    C. Program Distribution
IX. Pilot Study To Assess Effectiveness of Preliminary Vehicle-CRS 
Fit Program Evaluation Criteria
    A. Development of Vehicle-CRS Fit Evaluation Forms
    B. Pilot Study Approach
    1. Vehicle Selection
    2. CRS Selection
    C. General Pilot Study Observations
X. Pilot Study Observations and Resulting Proposed Fit Criteria
    A. Vehicle Seat Belts
    B. Top Tether Anchorages
    C. Lower Anchorages
    D. Head Restraints
    E. CRS Installation, Use, and Tightness
    F. Vehicle Owner's Manual
    G. Weight Limits
    H. Rear-Facing CRS
XI. Conclusions and Effective Date
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Public Participation
Appendices
    APPENDIX A: Worldwide Child Restraint Consumer Information 
Programs
    A. Child Restraints Evaluation Program (CREP)
    B. Consumers Union
    C. EuroNCAP
    D. Japan NCAP (JNCAP)
    E. New Program for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems 
(NPACS) and the Child Seat Rating Scheme
    APPENDIX B: Pilot Study Evaluation Form
    APPENDIX C: Observations From Vehicle-CRS Pilot Study
    APPENDIX D: Proposed Vehicle-CRS Fit Assessment Forms
    APPENDIX E: Installation Methods for Assessing Vehicle-CRS Fit

I. Executive Summary

    Child restraint systems (CRS) are very effective at protecting 
children sitting in vehicles that are involved in motor vehicle 
crashes. Nonetheless, past studies have shown that installation 
mistakes that reduce or negate the effectiveness of CRS still occur 
frequently. Instances of misuse for child restraints can be attributed 
to user error or to incompatibilities between the child restraint and 
the vehicle. To address misuse due to user error, NHTSA conducts a CRS 
Ease of Use (EOU) program. To address the need for increased 
compatibility, DOT announced, on April 24, 2009, that NHTSA would 
establish a new consumer information program, as part of the New Car 
Assessment Program, to help caregivers find a child restraint system 
that fits their vehicle.
    The agency believes that this program will (1) provide consumer 
service by offering guidance on vehicle-CRS matchups, (2) complement 
NHTSA's Ease of Use program, 4 Steps for Kids consumer information 
campaign, as well as other child passenger safety initiatives, and (3) 
encourage child restraint and vehicle manufacturers to work together to 
address the need for increased compatibility.
    This document outlines factors that the agency deemed significant 
to the development of a Vehicle-CRS Fit program and details 
observations from an agency pilot study conducted to determine 
reasonable conditions for participation in such a program. It also 
proposes a set of forms comprised of objective criteria that vehicle 
manufacturers can use to identify child safety seats that fit their 
vehicles. In developing the proposed evaluation forms, the agency 
considered general installation techniques that are required for all 
CRS installations, specific installation techniques and other factors 
that apply to certain types of CRS or particular modes of use, and 
vehicle features that may influence proper CRS

[[Page 10638]]

fit. Under the program, NHTSA will disseminate a list of child 
restraints that manufacturers suggest will fit in their individual 
vehicles on Safercar.gov.
    To participate in the program, vehicle manufacturers shall 
recommend at least three current model year child restraints within 
each of three different CRS categories (rear-facing, forward-facing, 
and booster). For the forward-facing category, at least one high-weight 
harness CRS shall be recommended, and for the booster category, no more 
than one of the three recommended booster seats may be a dedicated 
backless booster. Additionally, the three recommended CRS for each of 
the three CRS categories shall be from three different CRS 
manufacturers and shall also meet three established price points 
(inexpensive, moderately-priced, and expensive) based on the child 
restraint's Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price. To ensure 
recommended CRS satisfy the proposed fit evaluation criteria, the 
agency is also proposing to conduct its own assessments to spot-check 
fit for recommended vehicle-CRS combinations.
    The agency is proposing this program for voluntary participation by 
vehicle manufacturers and is seeking comment on all of its aspects.

II. Introduction

    NHTSA is primarily responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and 
economic losses as a result of motor vehicle crashes. Child safety 
seats, technically referred to as child restraint systems (CRS) by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child 
restraint systems,'' are widely agreed to be the most effective motor 
vehicle safety equipment available for restraining children. Although 
parents and caregivers strive to protect their children in motor 
vehicles, unfortunately, statistics on CRS misuse reveal that 
installation mistakes still happen with considerable frequency. A 2004 
study conducted with the support of NHTSA estimated that errors in 
installation, identified as critical errors by the study, occur at a 
high rate of 72.6 percent.\1\ While this study found the most common 
reasons for misuse to be loose harness straps securing the child to the 
CRS and loose vehicle seat belt attachment to the CRS, other types of 
misuse were also observed. Though instances of misuse such as loose 
vehicle seat belts can be attributed to user error, in some cases it 
may also be attributed to incompatibilities between the CRS and the 
vehicle. Due to the variety of vehicle and child restraint features in 
the U.S. market, some combinations of child restraints and vehicles 
make proper installation more difficult to achieve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Decina L.E. and Lococo K. H. (2004). Misuse of Child 
Restraints. NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 809 671, Page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the spring of 2009, the Secretary of Transportation tasked the 
agency with conducting a top-to-bottom review of child restraint 
regulations and consumer information. As a result of this internal 
review, the agency determined that while CRS are effective at 
protecting children, more can be done to improve their performance. 
Several agency initiatives were developed toward that end. Several 
programs pursue upgrading FMVSS No. 213 by adding side impact 
requirements to the standard, and by evaluating future improvements to 
its frontal impact requirements.
    In addition, a new consumer information initiative was begun to 
enhance the ease with which parents and caregivers can choose a CRS for 
their vehicle, knowing that the CRS will fit their vehicle when 
installed. Under the program, NHTSA will make available recommendations 
from vehicle manufacturers as to the specific child safety seats, in 
various price ranges, that fit in individual vehicles. NHTSA believes 
that providing parents with information about which child restraints 
fit in their vehicle(s) will improve consumers' confidence in and 
comfort with using CRSs, and will reduce installation mistakes.
    This document describes the agency's efforts to develop, pilot 
test, and propose a Vehicle-CRS Fit program for consumer information 
purposes. The agency is proposing this program, which will be part of 
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), for voluntary participation 
by vehicle manufacturers and is seeking comment on all of its aspects. 
Vehicle manufacturers who wish to participate could use finalized 
versions of the evaluation forms provided in this document as a means 
of determining whether a particular CRS meets the agency's criteria for 
fit in their vehicles. Once a vehicle manufacturer has determined that 
a child restraint satisfies the agency's criteria for fit, it may 
submit this information to NHTSA for publication on the agency's 
consumer information Web site, http://www.safercar.gov.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As part of the program, NHTSA will spot-check the fit of 
CRSs in vehicles to make sure that the information is accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Current Child Safety Problem

    Child restraints reduce fatal injury by 71 percent for children 
less than 1 year old and by 54 percent for toddlers (1-4 years old) in 
passenger cars.\3\ Similarly, in light trucks, the corresponding 
reductions are 58 and 59 percent for infants and toddlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Traffic Safety Facts 2007: Occupant Protection, DOT HS 810 
991, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency, along with manufacturers, local governments, and 
consumer groups, have consistently urged the public to put all children 
in age-appropriate restraints in the rear seats of vehicles. In recent 
years, many States have also passed child restraint and booster seat 
laws, which require children to travel in approved restraints for their 
age.\4\ These education and regulatory efforts are working; over the 
past decade, the percentage of unrestrained child fatalities has 
decreased significantly: 23 percent in 2008 \5\ compared to 43 percent 
in 1998.\6\ In June of 2009, NHTSA published a Research Note that 
provided more detailed demographic information about child restraint 
use. In a national probability sample of gas stations, day care 
centers, recreation centers, and restaurants in five fast food chains, 
it determined that 99 percent of children under age 1, 92 percent of 
children from ages 1 to 3, 89 percent of children ages 4 to 7, and 85 
percent of children ages 8 to 12 were restrained.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.iihs.org/laws/ChildRestraint.aspx.
    \5\ Traffic Safety Facts 2008: Children, DOT HS 811 157, 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Page 4.
    \6\ Traffic Safety Facts 1998: Children, DOT HS 808 951, 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 400 7th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590, Page 4.
    \7\ Traffic Safety Facts: Child Restraint Use in 2008--
Demographic Results, NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 811 148, National 
Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, Pages 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tragically, in 2008, there were still 297 passenger vehicle 
occupant fatalities among children under 4 years of age. Restraint use 
was not known for all of these fatalities, but of the 282 children 
whose restraint use was known, 94 (32 percent) of those children were 
unrestrained. In the same year, however, an estimated 244 lives of 
children under age 5 were saved by proper restraint use. Of these lives 
saved, 219 were attributed to the use of child restraints and 25 to the 
use of adult safety belts. If 100 percent restraint use for children 
under age 5 had been attained in 2008, the agency estimates that 79 
additional lives, for a total of 323 children, could have been saved 
that year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Traffic Safety Facts 2008: Occupant Protection, DOT HS 811 
157, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Page 4.

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

[[Page 10639]]

IV. NHTSA's CRS Activities

    When a parent or caregiver is seeking information regarding a new 
CRS purchase, the agency's guidance is that a caregiver should select a 
restraint that is certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213, fits the child, 
can be used correctly every time, and can achieve a proper installation 
in the vehicle in which it will be used. The agency addresses these 
recommendations in the following ways:
     All child restraints sold in the United States must comply 
with the requirements in FMVSS No. 213. This standard contains dynamic 
frontal impact sled tests as well as strict labeling and component 
durability and strength requirements. All child restraints are 
evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Test dummies representing newborn, 
twelve-month-old, three-year-old, and six-year-old children are secured 
in age-, height- and weight-appropriate CRS to evaluate their dynamic 
performance. The latter three dummies are instrumented and must meet 
HIC (Head Injury Criterion), head excursion, and chest acceleration 
requirements when subjected to the 213 test. FMVSS No. 213 also 
specifies knee excursion requirements for CRS tested with the three-
year-old and six-year-old dummies, and additional structural durability 
and requirements with which all CRS must comply.
     To ensure that consumers choose a child restraint that 
fits their child, the agency created its 4 Steps for Kids consumer 
information campaign. This initiative arranges the agency's child 
passenger safety message into four phases, or ``steps,'' of a child's 
development. The first three ``steps'' are CRS-related guidelines that 
explain to consumers how to properly transition children from rear-
facing restraints to forward-facing restraints and finally to belt-
positioning boosters. The fourth ``step'' provides information on when 
it is appropriate for children to transition into rear seat adult lap/
shoulder belts. Choosing age-, height-, and weight-appropriate 
restraints for children throughout their development reduces their risk 
of injury in a crash.
     As mentioned earlier in the introduction, high rates of 
misuse for child restraints have been observed. To address this 
concern, along with child restraint usability, the agency conducts a 
CRS Ease of Use (EOU) program. The agency published a Final Notice 
announcing the EOU program in November of 2002.\9\ This program created 
child restraint usability ratings based on five categories: Ease of 
Assembly, Clarity of Labeling, Clarity of Instructions, Ease of 
Securing the Child, and Ease of Securing the CRS in the Vehicle. 
Substantial improvement in CRS usability features was observed: Only 57 
percent of child restraints received the top rating when the program 
began, and by 2007, 81 percent of child restraints received the top 
rating. In 2008, the program was updated to reflect changes in the CRS 
fleet by: Amending certain criteria, re-distributing the Ease of 
Assembly criteria category among the remaining four, and converting to 
a five-star rating system instead of the previous three-letter rating 
system.\10\ The agency continues to add child restraint usability 
ratings to the list each year. As of December 2009, ratings for 128 
child restraints were available.\11\ Child restraints are evaluated 
separately from vehicles through this program, but certain facets of 
the program relate to vehicle installation. The ``Ease of Securing the 
CRS in Vehicle'' category addresses features on the child restraint 
that aid in vehicle installation. For example, built-in seat belt lock-
offs \12\ eliminate the need for a locking clip in many instances. 
Wider belt paths allow the caregiver to more easily route the seat belt 
or lower attachment belt through the belt path, and push-button lower 
anchor connectors may be pushed on and removed with the touch of a 
button. Features such as these lessen the effort required to install a 
child restraint and are, in many cases, accommodated by the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 67 FR 67448, Docket NHTSA-2001-10053.
    \10\ 73 FR 6261, Docket NHTSA-2006-25344.
    \11\ Ease of Use Ratings can be found either in Docket NHTSA-
2006-25344 or at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_eou/.
    \12\ Some child restraints have built-in devices for locking the 
vehicle seat belt in place so that the retractor or separate locking 
clips do not have to be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The agency also conducts several other child passenger 
safety initiatives. NHTSA maintains the content of the National Child 
Passenger Safety Certification curriculum through partnerships with 
respected child passenger safety experts.\13\ This certification 
program is estimated to have trained tens of thousands of interested 
individuals to become Child Passenger Safety Technicians (CPSTs). 
During this certification, individuals learn how to properly install a 
large variety of child restraints and how to assist parents and 
caregivers in doing so themselves. CPSTs are an especially valuable 
resource to the agency because they can provide information to the 
caregivers at the community level. The curriculum is monitored and 
updated as necessary based on changes to the CRS fleet and best 
practice methodology.\14\ The agency also manages National Child 
Passenger Safety Week, an annual campaign during which community 
organizations across the country host safety seat checkups and other 
child passenger safety awareness events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These experts include members of The National Child 
Passenger Safety Board, AAA, Safe Kids Worldwide, The Children's 
Hospital of Philadelphia, vehicle and CRS manufacturers, and others.
    \14\ CPST best practice methodology is considered the most 
acceptable way to transport a child safely on the basis of the 
child's age, weight, height, and body development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's major child passenger safety initiatives (FMVSS No. 213, 4 
Steps for Kids, Ease of Use, and the CPST Curriculum) help parents and 
caregivers select an age-, height-, and weight-appropriate CRS that is 
simple to use and that is safe. However, the agency has recognized for 
some time that because of incompatibility issues between the vehicle 
and the CRS, parents and caregivers may still have difficulty not only 
selecting a CRS that fits their vehicle(s), but also properly 
installing selected child restraints in their vehicle(s). The CPST 
Curriculum may also not reach the general public. Accordingly, the 
agency has taken several steps to address vehicle-CRS compatibility 
issues.

V. Addressing Vehicle-CRS Compatibility

A. Consumer Information

    To date, the agency's attempts at developing a consumer information 
program that addresses vehicle-CRS compatibility issues have 
encountered a number of challenges. One of the most difficult issues 
the agency has had to resolve is how to manage the enormous amount of 
information that can be generated on the dozens of CRSs and vehicles on 
the market and the possible interface between each CRS and each vehicle 
model.
    In the fall of 1995, NHTSA tried to develop a vehicle and child 
restraint database. At the time, the agency surmised that a vehicle-CRS 
matrix could be distributed via CD-ROM to caregivers, child passenger 
safety advocates, and any other parties that educate the public about 
proper child restraint use. The resulting matrix was intended to be 
all-inclusive; information on specific child restraints would be 
coupled with details about vehicle makes, models, and available seating 
positions in which they could be successfully installed. However, 
during the database development, the agency

[[Page 10640]]

determined that its initial work toward providing information on the 
compatibility of 35 CRS with 100 vehicles from model years 1993-1996 
was overly ambitious. The sheer number of vehicle/CRS combinations made 
the data collection efforts overwhelming, especially considering that 
the agency was only working with a subset of the entire vehicle and CRS 
fleets. The initial matrix was also limited in its usefulness; the data 
applied only to the specific combinations of vehicles and child 
restraints listed. Because the development of the database proved 
unworkable, and because adoption of a standardized CRS attachment 
system was under consideration, the agency decided to discontinue its 
efforts to develop a vehicle-CRS matrix.

B. LATCH

    On March 5, 1999, the agency issued a final rule establishing FMVSS 
No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.'' This standard, which 
became fully effective on September 1, 2002, required the Lower Anchors 
and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH) system in most passenger vehicles and 
compatible hardware components on child restraints. A ``LATCH'' system 
is comprised of a set of small bars (known as lower anchors) located 
near the seat bight, and a third attachment point (known as a top 
tether anchor) located above or behind the vehicle seat. FMVSS No. 225 
requires a LATCH system to be installed at two rear seating positions 
on vehicles, and a top tether anchor at a third position. The final 
rule also amended FMVSS No. 213 to require child restraints to be 
equipped with attachments that mate with vehicles' lower anchors.
    The intention of the rulemaking was to provide an easy-to-use CRS 
attachment system that is independent of the vehicle seat belts. 
Through LATCH, incompatibility problems were reduced, and CRS 
installation made more intuitive and more effective.
    LATCH successfully resolved some of the compatibility problems that 
users experienced with seat belts. In most vehicles, child restraints 
can be installed using LATCH successfully. In a 2006 NHTSA survey, 
loose installation rates of child restraints had decreased from 
previous studies: Sixty-one percent of child restraints were securely 
installed using LATCH in the 2006 study, whereas a 2004 study examining 
incorrect installations with seat belts found only up to forty-six 
percent of child restraints were securely installed.\15\ The report 
concluded that there are two main reasons for this development: The 
absence of locking clips and the simplified process of fastening the 
LATCH attachments to the vehicle anchors. Many caregivers prefer using 
LATCH over seat belts when possible. Of those surveyed with experience 
using both LATCH and a seat belt, seventy-five percent preferred LATCH. 
Fifty-five percent of those who did not use LATCH were either unaware 
that lower anchors were available in their vehicle or were unsure how 
to use them.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., Doyle, C.T., Child Restraint 
Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse, NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 810 
679, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 2006, 
Page 2.
    \16\ Additionally, it was found that caregiver preference played 
a large role in LATCH use. For example, even though the CRS may 
technically fit in the vehicle seat, the caregiver may find that 
locating the LATCH anchors is difficult due to stiff vehicle 
cushions or the deep placement of anchors within some vehicles' seat 
bights. Others may simply be more comfortable using the seat belt to 
install the child restraint because of prior experience with that 
method of installation; others may simply assume that the seat belt 
is safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, the LATCH system has successfully provided caregivers 
with an alternative to seat belts installations. Caregivers using LATCH 
to install their child restraint no longer have to remember a host of 
additional seat belt installation steps such as locking the vehicle 
seat belt when installing the child restraint. They also do not have to 
wrestle with seat belt geometry incompatibilities such as buckle stalk 
lengths and anchor points.

VI. Considerations for Development of a New Consumer Information 
Program To Address Vehicle-CRS Compatibility

    NHTSA is committed to improving vehicle-CRS compatibility and 
providing better consumer information. LATCH has improved the ease with 
which a CRS can be installed in a vehicle; however, it does not 
standardize the contours of the vehicle seat or the footprint of the 
CRS. Consequently, some child restraints might fit a particular vehicle 
better than other child restraints. Getting parents to select a 
restraint that is known to fit their vehicle ensures that they begin 
the installation process with a higher potential for success and level 
of efficiency in attaining a correct installation. It can also reduce 
their frustration and confusion. For these reasons, the agency has 
decided to develop and propose a consumer information program to 
address CRS fit in vehicles.
    The agency hopes that a program that focuses on vehicle-CRS 
compatibility will drive not only improved vehicle designs, but perhaps 
improved CRS designs, too, as child restraint and vehicle manufacturers 
will likely have to work together to address the need for increased 
compatibility. Changes to CRS footprints, redesigned belt paths, and 
more LATCH-friendly hardware are a few of the design changes that could 
be introduced as a result of compatibility-focused efforts. Although 
the agency realizes that implementation of such changes may take time, 
we believe that voluntary design improvements will nonetheless occur 
due to the increased cooperative efforts between vehicle and CRS 
manufacturers to improve vehicle-CRS compatibility.
    To best serve consumers, the agency believes that any program 
designed to assess vehicle-CRS compatibility should complement and 
supplement other child restraint and vehicle information it 
promulgates. Such a program should also result in a robust, repeatable 
assessment so that it is effective at not only helping parents and 
caregivers choose a child restraint that fits their vehicle(s), but 
also, in turn, helps deter misuse and frustration stemming from 
incompatibilities. We believe this can best be achieved by developing a 
program that is based solely on objective criteria. A program based on 
objective criteria should be simpler for manufacturers and evaluators 
to understand and use compared to one based on subjective assessments. 
Establishing objective assessment criteria should also help to minimize 
manufacturer concerns that consumers selecting a recommended CRS may 
still have difficulty fitting the CRS in their vehicle(s). This may 
promote increased voluntary participation as a result and ultimately 
provide consumers with the CRS information that they need.

VII. Review of Worldwide Child Restraint Consumer Information Programs

    In developing a program that would assist consumers in finding a 
child restraint that fits in their vehicle(s), NHTSA examined other 
child restraint-related consumer information and rating programs 
internationally and did not find a system that met all of the agency's 
needs.\17\ However, a portion of a draft ISOFIX usability standard 
developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) was found 
to be most relevant.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The agency's review of child restraint consumer information 
programs is included as Appendix A.
    \18\ ISO is a collection of organizations from 162 countries 
responsible for establishing world-wide voluntary industry 
standards. Representatives from these countries have helped publish 
over 17,500 international standards on various technical subjects, 
products, and processes.

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

[[Page 10641]]

    In 1999, ISO published a draft standard outlining specifications 
for a rigid anchor system, known as ``ISOFIX,'' for attaching child 
restraints to vehicles. In 2004, it also developed a draft standard on 
tether anchorages and their acceptable locations in vehicles. Together, 
these two draft standards outlined the requirements for a dedicated in-
vehicle CRS installation system that is very similar to the U.S. LATCH 
system. In addition, ISO has since drafted rating forms for evaluating 
the usability of vehicle ISOFIX designs with different child 
restraints.\19\ The intent of these ratings forms is to assess the 
usability of a particular vehicle's ISOFIX system as well as a 
particular child restraint's installation features (which is similar 
to, but not as comprehensive as, the agency's current Ease of Use 
program). In addition, the forms also assess the interface between that 
vehicle and CRS when the user actually performs an installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ISO/DIS 29061-1. Road vehicles--Methods and criteria for 
usability evaluation of child restraint systems and their interface 
with vehicle anchorage systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of all the consumer information and ratings programs the agency 
examined, the ISO draft standard most closely fit the agency's needs 
because of its unique assessment of the installation interface between 
a CRS and a vehicle. However, the agency was not able to draw 
extensively from the draft ISO usability standard for the proposed 
Vehicle-CRS Fit program for a number of reasons. For instance, in light 
of its comprehensive Ease of Use program, the agency did not see a need 
for including a CRS usability evaluation as a part of this Vehicle-CRS 
Fit program, nor did the agency feel that inclusion of criteria 
pertaining to the usability of CRS attachment hardware was warranted. 
Adopting a program that evaluates the actual vehicle-CRS interface 
would effectively address certain ISO criteria related to the usability 
of CRS attachment hardware in vehicles because the attachment hardware 
may generate installation issues, such as instability, that can 
prohibit a child restraint from fitting properly in a vehicle. Some of 
the ISO criteria also incorporate the ease of performing tasks related 
to the installation, and many of these are then designated ``good,'' 
``average,'' or ``poor.'' For the proposed program, the agency wanted 
to include only objective installation criteria that pertain to proper 
fit, i.e., whether a proper fit was achieved, not the ease of attaining 
that fit. In addition, the ISO draft rating forms only evaluate ISOFIX 
installations. The agency wanted a program that assessed both LATCH and 
seat belt installations. Finally, the ISO draft standard does not cover 
booster seats either, and the agency wanted to include these in its 
Vehicle-CRS Fit program since they are an important part of its child 
passenger safety initiatives.

VIII. Conditions for Participation, Program Administration, and 
Distribution

    Observations from an agency pilot study confirmed that installation 
issues can arise from either the child restraint or the vehicle, and 
can also be vehicle-CRS interface specific. For some vehicles, the same 
fit problem was observed when installing several different CRS types 
(infant, convertible, combination, booster, etc.) and models of child 
restraints. Considering that these same child restraints could be 
properly installed in several other vehicle models, it appears that for 
the vehicle models in which the subject child restraints would not fit, 
design changes to accommodate a greater number of CRS models would be 
appropriate. In some instances, inadequate fit was observed for every 
seat belt or LATCH installation for every child restraint installed in 
a vehicle. Therefore, it is likely that manufacturers of such vehicles 
would need to make changes to improve fit for both LATCH and seat belt 
installations to have information included in the consumer information 
program described today. Additionally, it was found that certain 
vehicle features may prohibit the installation of certain types of CRS 
in certain seating positions. Consequently, it may not be reasonable 
for vehicle manufacturers to claim that a child restraint fits in all 
applicable seating locations within a vehicle. Furthermore, space 
constraints, particularly for smaller vehicle models, may dictate the 
position of a vehicle's front seats or rear seating positions that are 
acceptable for installation of certain CRS.

A. Conditions for Participation in the Vehicle-CRS Fit Program

    In the interest of time and the need for improved consumer 
information, the agency is proposing that this program begin as a 
voluntary effort in MY 2012 for vehicle manufacturers only; however we 
are seeking comment on whether more time is needed. We believe that 
consumers will shop for a CRS having their vehicle already in mind, so 
it would be most reasonable for the fit program to be vehicle-based. 
The agency also believes gaining access to vehicles is more difficult 
and burdensome for child restraint manufacturers than it is for vehicle 
manufacturers to gain access to child restraints. However, the agency 
does not think that child restraint manufacturers should be excluded 
from the vehicle-CRS fit efforts; in fact, the contrary is true. NHTSA 
highly encourages vehicle and child restraint manufacturers to work 
together to complete these fit assessments. However, at this time, the 
agency will only collect vehicle-child restraint fit suggestions from 
vehicle manufacturers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Vehicle-CRS fit recommendations will be accepted only for 
those vehicles having Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) of 10,000 
lbs. or less, as this program is intended to supplement NCAP, which 
limits testing to vehicles having GVWRs of 10,000 lbs. or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing that vehicle manufacturers should install 
child restraints in their vehicles, and while doing so, should bear in 
mind the considerations outlined throughout this document, and use the 
evaluation forms included in Appendix D (once they are finalized) to 
assess CRS fit in their vehicles. For a manufacturer to indicate that a 
specific child restraint fits in a particular vehicle, the child 
restraint must be assessed in all applicable modes of use and in all 
appropriate seating positions in the vehicle. Depending on the 
restraint, modes of use can include, but are not limited to: Rear-
facing, forward-facing, booster (high-back and backless), with and 
without a base, and with both ``short'' and ``long'' belt paths, where 
applicable. Child restraints that manufacturers determine fit a vehicle 
must fit in every appropriate seating location in the vehicle. For most 
passenger cars, appropriate seating positions will include those in the 
rear or second row; however, additional rows of seating must also be 
assessed, if applicable.
    Because of the agency's continuing efforts to ensure that children 
ride in the rear seat, the agency does not expect manufacturers of 
vehicles with rear seats that can accommodate child restraints to 
provide fit suggestions for the front right passenger seat.\21\ For 
two-

[[Page 10642]]

seaters and pickup trucks without a rear seat that have an air bag on-
off switch, however, we believe that it would be appropriate to 
indicate child restraints that fit the front right passenger seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The agency understands that in some cases, such as in 
transporting four children in a vehicle with only five seating 
positions, forward-facing restraints or booster seats may be 
correctly installed in the front right passenger seat. However, as 
the agency wants to encourage that children be properly restrained 
in the rear of the vehicle unless the vehicle in which they are 
traveling does not have a rear seating location, the agency does not 
want to suggest to parents and caregivers that the front seat is an 
acceptable travel position for younger occupants by providing 
vehicle-CRS fit recommendations for this seat. Therefore, the agency 
does not expect vehicle manufacturers to assess front right 
passenger seat fit if a usable rear seat exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing to not permit manufacturer recommendations 
of child restraints or boosters that fit in only certain seating 
positions or rows in the vehicle. The agency feels that parents and 
caregivers who purchase a child restraint for their vehicle based on 
this program should have the option to use it in all appropriate 
seating locations. This is especially important when the family grows 
and child restraints are often moved from the center to the two 
outboard seating positions or from the second to the third row. 
However, the pilot study showed that it may be difficult for vehicle 
manufacturers to meet this condition for participation. In a number of 
cases, an excellent fit was possible in outboard seating positions, but 
not in the center position, or vice-versa. Accordingly, although the 
agency tentatively believes that this stipulation is necessary, we are 
requesting comment on whether we should permit a CRS to be identified 
by the vehicle manufacturer as fitting its vehicle even if the CRS does 
not fit in all seating positions. Although we would like eventually to 
list only those child restraints that fit unconditionally in vehicles, 
should we accept, at this point in the program, a listing of CRSs that 
fit in only certain seating positions? Limitations on CRS use in the 
vehicle could be noted on Safercar.gov. We question whether requiring 
that a CRS fit all seating positions in all rows (except the driver's 
seat row) may result in reduced vehicle manufacturer participation in 
the short term and no CRS being listed for a number of vehicles on 
Safercar.gov.
    Although vehicle manufacturers must ensure that recommended child 
restraints fit for all applicable modes of their use, the agency has 
tentatively decided to allow the manufacturer to specify that a child 
restraint fits when installed with either LATCH or the vehicle seat 
belts (plus top tether, if applicable). Of course, it is most ideal for 
a child restraint to fit correctly using either method of installation. 
However, the agency's pilot study revealed that requiring both methods 
for this program would make it difficult for many manufacturers to 
participate. Depending on the vehicle design, either a LATCH or seat 
belt installation was found to be problematic for many of the CRS 
selected for the pilot study, but not necessarily both.
    The agency feels that giving the vehicle manufacturers the option 
to assess fit for either LATCH or seat belt installations will likely 
result in better participation and useful information for consumers. 
This approach can alert consumers to incompatibilities related to LATCH 
anchor spacing, seat belt length, buckle stalk length, etc., that they 
may not have been otherwise aware of, hopefully decreasing the number 
of incorrect installations in the field. The agency also suspects that 
some vehicle manufacturers will be interested in making design changes 
to increase the number of child restraints that can achieve a proper 
installation in their vehicle(s) with either LATCH or seat belts. The 
agency recognizes, however, that making vehicle improvements to either 
system can require some lead time. Consequently, in the interim, 
manufacturers can provide consumers with fit suggestions based on 
either child restraint installation method.
    The agency is also proposing that to participate in the Vehicle-CRS 
Fit program (i.e., to have the CRS information included on 
Safercar.gov), vehicle manufacturers need to identify at least three 
current model year child restraints within each of three different 
categories: rear-facing, forward-facing, and booster. We are proposing 
to condition participation on listing restraints in all type/age 
categories as a way to encourage manufacturers to address 
systematically and comprehensively the issue of CRS fit for all ages 
and sizes of children. These categories were also chosen because they 
follow NHTSA's 4 Steps for Kids program.
    Child restraints within each of the three type/age categories 
should also be from three different child restraint manufacturers. This 
condition for participation is being proposed to encourage vehicle 
manufacturers to work with a variety of child restraint manufacturers 
and products. It will also discourage a vehicle manufacturer from 
forming partnerships with only one child restraint manufacturer and 
thus minimize consumer confusion or belief that only one brand of child 
restraint is acceptable for use in their vehicle. Also, NHTSA believes 
that this condition may give manufacturers with low volume child 
restraint models the opportunity to gain additional exposure. To 
satisfy the booster category, we are proposing that no more than one of 
the three booster seats can be a dedicated backless booster. This 
condition is being proposed for a few reasons. For one, most backless 
boosters have higher minimum height and weight requirements than their 
high-back counterparts. Therefore, requiring more high-back boosters in 
order to participate serves to cover a greater range of child sizes. In 
addition, some high-back boosters are designed such that the back can 
eventually be removed and used as a backless booster when the child 
reaches a certain height. In this, there are a number of products on 
the market that are both styles in one and would have to be evaluated 
for fit in both high-back and backless modes anyway. Further, the 
agency suspects that due to their increased complexity, high-back 
boosters will likely exhibit more fit complications.
    The agency is tentatively proposing to not permit vehicle 
manufacturers to recommend fewer than three child restraints for any 
one of the three categories (rear-facing, forward-facing, and booster); 
recommendations of only one or two child restraints for any one 
category will not be posted on Safercar.gov. The agency questions 
whether this approach is appropriate or whether providing one or two 
recommendations for any one category may better serve consumers than 
providing no CRS recommendations for a particular category. Comments 
are requested on this issue.
    Since it is generally advisable for parents to keep children in a 
harness for as long as possible to ensure the highest level of crash 
protection, the agency is proposing to further stipulate that at least 
one high-weight harness CRS be identified in the forward-facing 
category. These high-weight harness CRS are child safety seats that 
allow use of internal harness systems on children weighing more than 40 
pounds. If a vehicle manufacturer has fulfilled the basic program 
participation conditions, they then have the option of also 
recommending ``All-in-one,'' ``three-in-one,'' and built-in child 
restraints. Recommendations made for these CRS types, however, are 
optional. They would have to be in addition to those made for child 
restraints outlined previously as conditions for participation. Figure 
1 depicts the acceptable types of CRS that can be recommended within 
each of the three main categories.

[[Page 10643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.029

    The agency's last proposed condition for participation in this 
program regards price points. Within each of the three categories 
(rear-facing, forward-facing, and booster), vehicle manufacturers must 
identify products that meet established price categories based on the 
child restraint's Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). The 
proposed price points for each category, which were established based 
on a survey of model year 2009 CRS, are shown in Table 1. These price 
points were established so that CRS selection is not limited to the 
most expensive child restraints available, and again to ensure a 
variety of CRS makes and models. A child restraint does not need to be 
expensive to provide adequate crash protection. Likewise, the agency 
wants to encourage through this program that a child restraint does not 
need to be expensive in order to fit properly in one's vehicle. If a 
vehicle manufacturer would like to fulfill only the minimum conditions 
for participation for three child restraint recommendations in a 
particular category, they must include at least one restraint that 
falls in the ``inexpensive'' range and at most one restraint in the 
``expensive'' range. If more than three child restraints are 
recommended for any one category, the additional child restraints may 
fall within any price point the vehicle manufacturer chooses. The 
agency is proposing to provide vehicle manufacturers with this price-
point information with the Buying a Safer Car information request and 
plans to re-evaluate the price points as needed. Comments are requested 
on this approach.

                                    Table 1--Price Points for CRS Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Rear-facing       Forward-facing          Booster
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inexpensive.........................................              < $100              < $130               < $80
Moderately Expensive................................           $100-$200           $130-$230            $80-$100
Expensive...........................................              > $200              > $230              > $100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Program Administration

    The agency proposes that the easiest way to collect child restraint 
and vehicle fit suggestions is through NCAP's annual Buying a Safer Car 
information request since vehicle manufacturers are already familiar 
with its submission process. Though participation in this program would 
be voluntary, the agency would also need to ensure that any fit 
information it receives from manufacturers is correct. As in the pilot 
study, the agency could rent or lease vehicles to spot-check child 
restraints identified by vehicle manufacturers as fitting specified 
vehicles. Using the final versions of the evaluation forms proposed in 
this document, the agency would spot-check the vehicle-CRS fits 
identified by the vehicle manufacturers.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Similar to how NHTSA conducts its EOU program, the agency 
is proposing that two two-person agency teams would spot-check fit 
recommendations in the same vehicle. If both teams did not reach 
similar conclusions about whether a CRS meets the fit requirements 
for a particular vehicle, another NHTSA representative would make 
the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Program Distribution

    The agency is proposing that the vehicle-CRS fit combinations 
identified by vehicle manufacturers be published via the Safercar.gov 
Web site, the agency's main consumer information portal. Adding this 
information to Safercar.gov can provide consumers with the best 
available vehicle-CRS fit information and provide market incentives 
among manufacturers. In the past, this has helped to ensure the success 
of voluntary programs such as the agency's side air bag out-of-position 
testing initiative through NCAP.\23\ Nearly every vehicle manufacturer

[[Page 10644]]

voluntarily participated in this program within two years. The agency 
has also taken a similar approach in MY 2011 for promoting vehicles 
with advanced crash avoidance technologies.\24\ Though this program 
does not assess the occupant protection afforded by a particular 
vehicle-CRS combination in a crash, the agency believes that giving 
consumers information on whether a child restraint may be installed 
properly in a vehicle does provide indirect safety benefits. By 
providing consumers with information about child restraints that have 
been successfully installed in particular vehicles, the agency seeks to 
improve consumers' confidence in and comfort with selecting and using 
CRSs, and to reduce installation mistakes in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Each year, vehicle manufacturers provide evidence to the 
agency that they have conducted (and passed) a series of tests 
designed to assess the aggressivity of side air bags with respect to 
out-of-position occupants. Participating vehicle manufacturers are 
given credit on Safercar.gov in exchange for providing this data.
    \24\ Federal Register Volume 72, No 175, 51908-51973. September 
11, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Vehicle-CRS Fit program, the agency is proposing to display 
all suggested child restraints along with information pertaining to 
vehicle star ratings and safety features. As is the case in the Ease of 
Use program, NHTSA plans to minimize consumer confusion by emphasizing 
to consumers that the child restraint suggestions are not 
recommendations based on the CRS or vehicle's safety performance. 
Furthermore, to reduce manufacturer concerns that displaying particular 
child restraint suggestions on Safercar.gov will imply that assessments 
are an indicator of occupant safety in the event of a vehicle crash, 
the agency proposes to add a disclaimer to the Vehicle-CRS Fit 
assessment section of the Web site which will state, ``NOTE: The 
restraints above have been determined to fit successfully in this 
vehicle via the method(s) listed. This is an assessment of installation 
ONLY and should NOT be considered a safety claim for the vehicle or the 
child restraint. ALL child restraints and vehicles sold in the United 
States must pass rigorous Federal standards. Child restraints provide 
high levels of safety when selected to be age- and size-appropriate for 
the child and properly installed.''
    In addition, it will be further explained that the child restraints 
listed may not be the only products that can achieve a successful 
installation in that vehicle. To address concerns that parents and 
caregivers may believe that child restraints listed on Safercar.gov are 
the only CRS that are acceptable for their child and that will fit in 
their vehicle, the agency proposes to also include the following note: 
``This list of child restraints is not all-inclusive. Vehicle 
manufacturers voluntarily provide this information for parents and 
caregivers as a starting point to help them select a child restraint 
that fits their child and fits their vehicle. You may find other child 
restraints that fit equally as well as those presented above. Also, you 
may contact a Child Passenger Safety Technician (CPST) in your area to 
check that your child seat both fits and is installed properly in your 
vehicle by clicking here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cps/cpsfitting/
index.cfm.''
    If, during spot-checking activities, a child restraint is found to 
not meet the fit assessment criteria, NHTSA is proposing to remove that 
information from Safercar.gov Web site. This is consistent with 
removing the ``M'' from vehicles determined not to meet the side air 
bag out-of-position testing requirements. The same strategy was 
employed when spot-checking the performance of certain crash avoidance 
technologies for MY 2011 vehicles and beyond. If the deletion of that 
child restraint means the vehicle no longer meets the participation 
conditions for that category, the agency proposes to give the vehicle 
manufacturer the opportunity to indicate another child restraint, which 
will be checked for fit by the agency. If no alternatives can be found, 
and the vehicle no longer meets the program's participation conditions, 
it is proposed that all child restraint suggestions for that vehicle 
will be deleted from Safercar.gov. Alternatively, the agency proposes 
to allow the vehicle manufacturer to contest the result from the spot-
check test by demonstrating that the restraint in question fulfills the 
fit assessment criteria. Such a challenge will be reviewed by agency 
staff and a decision will be made as to whether the restraint meets the 
assessment criteria for ``fit'' and hence, the listing of the child 
restraint.
    For each vehicle model, the agency envisions a detailed page on 
Safercar.gov that shows consumers the child restraints that have been 
indicated as appropriate for all vehicle seating position in the three 
categories--rear-facing, forward-facing, and booster. We also propose 
to indicate LATCH availability in the vehicle and whether the 
manufacturer has indicated each child restraint fits properly using 
vehicle seat belts, LATCH, or both. Having a dedicated Web page will 
also give the agency the opportunity to reinforce important principles 
and programs such as 4 Steps for Kids and the CRS Ease of Use program. 
Consumers will be shown the height and weight ranges for the child 
restraints of interest. The agency also intends to link consumers to 
other areas of child passenger safety on NHTSA's Web site as well as 
offer installation tips and best practice guidance.
    The agency intends to use this Web site to disseminate any 
installation notes that the vehicle manufacturer may need to 
communicate. Such additional information can include, but would not be 
limited to: Front seat positioning along the seat track, sharing of 
outboard lower anchorages to ``create'' a center LATCH position, 
instances in which using lower anchors or seat belts in certain seating 
locations eliminates the use of other positions, etc.

IX. Pilot Study To Assess Effectiveness of Preliminary Vehicle-CRS Fit 
Program Evaluation Criteria

A. Development of Vehicle-CRS Fit Evaluation Forms

    In deciding to model its Vehicle-CRS Fit program after the draft 
ISO CRS-Vehicle usability program, the agency wanted, most importantly, 
to draw on the concept of developing a set of standard criteria to 
achieve the most repeatable assessments possible. The agency believed 
that developing standard evaluation forms would be the most beneficial 
approach for both vehicle manufacturers and consumers. The consumer 
information program would be enhanced if vehicle manufacturers, CRS 
manufacturers, consumers, and NHTSA have a common understanding of what 
the program considers a ``proper fit.'' Vehicle manufacturers would be 
able to directly use these forms in their internal assessments and 
would have more certainty in knowing that NHTSA will agree with their 
assessments of fit. Without a set of evaluation criteria, it could be 
possible for some vehicle manufacturers to submit data to the agency 
that does not meet NHTSA's expectations for a proper installation. In 
addition, if varying criteria were used, the agency might not be able 
to assist consumers in understanding what a manufacturer's fit 
recommendations constitute.
    As mentioned previously, to ensure a robust assessment, the agency 
reasoned that only objective criteria should be considered for the 
Vehicle-CRS Fit program. Accordingly, the agency's program will not 
assess how easily a child restraint can be installed in a vehicle, but 
will simply assess whether it can be installed successfully (i.e., 
whether the child restraint can fit in the vehicle). Although this is 
somewhat contrary to the draft ISO CRS-vehicle usability program, NHTSA 
believes there is subjectivity in the draft ISO criteria concerning the 
assessment of the ease of fit (such as those that require the

[[Page 10645]]

evaluator to assess the ease of performing a task).
    The agency has tentatively determined that the best way to 
objectively evaluate CRS fit in vehicles is to develop criteria based 
on factors known to influence installation, as outlined in the National 
Child Passenger Safety Certification Training Program student 
manual.\25\ The agency considered both general installation techniques 
(i.e., those that are required for all child restraint installations), 
as well as specific techniques that may be necessary for installation 
of certain types of child restraints or particular modes of use, such 
as ensuring that infant and rear-facing convertible restraints can be 
installed to the proper recline angle, ensuring that seat belts are of 
adequate length to install CRS with multiple belt paths (both long and 
short), and that the carry handle on infant restraints can be 
positioned according to manufacturer instructions. The agency was 
careful to incorporate vehicle features that influence proper CRS fit, 
such as top tether anchorages, lower anchorages, vehicle seat belts, 
and vehicle head restraints. In addition, we added criteria surrounding 
CRS installation tightness, and maximum weight limits of LATCH 
anchorages, as each of these factors can also dictate vehicle-CRS 
compatibility. It should be noted that many of the factors that were 
determined to be influential to achieving proper CRS installation based 
on the CPST student manual, including attachment to lower anchors, 
ability to tighten lower attachments once they are connected to lower 
anchors, maximum side-to-side and front-to-back movement of the CRS 
once it is installed, operation of the CRS harness once the CRS is 
installed, and tightening of the top tether once it is attached to the 
tether anchor, also mimicked criteria included in the draft ISOFIX 
usability standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The National Child Passenger Safety Certification Training 
Program is a curriculum designed to teach participants about the 
importance of child safety and how to properly install child 
restraints. Certified technicians, CPSTs, are equipped with the 
knowledge to explain installation procedures to parents and 
caregivers so that they may safely transport their families, and to 
empower them with the knowledge to confidently install and reinstall 
child restraints as needed. The training program, which is based on 
the concept of learning (the facts, skills, and information), 
practicing (the new skills and information), and explaining/teaching 
(what was learned to parents and caregivers), was developed by NHTSA 
in the mid-1990s and has been updated by the agency as needed. The 
National Child Passenger Safety Board oversees the quality and 
integrity of the training and certification requirements, while Safe 
Kids Worldwide administers certification. CPSTs receive hands-on 
experience through a variety of activities, including child safety 
seat checks, and their exposure to common installation problems, 
incompatibility issues, general knowledge of child restraints and 
features, make them a valuable resource for parents and caregivers 
seeking child restraint installation assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are requested on our use of the National Child Passenger 
Safety Certification Training Program student manual and the manual's 
determinations as to whether a CRS fits a vehicle. The benefits of 
using the manual are that the criteria contained therein have been used 
in the child passenger safety community for years as determinants of 
CRS fit. Accordingly, the manual serves as the primary guide to proper 
CRS installation and is a prominent child passenger safety resource. 
The installation criteria included in the manual are based on common 
sense, simplicity, and a ``best practices'' perspective. Furthermore, 
the agency's pilot study confirmed that applying the criteria outlined 
in the CPST manual resulted in secure CRS installation. However, 
because the agency is unaware of any test or accident data supporting 
some of the criteria specified for proper installation, the agency does 
not know if certain criteria should be used verbatim from the manual. 
An example of this is the criterion that no more than 20 percent of a 
child restraint's base may hang over the edge of the vehicle seat. 
Comments are requested as to why 20 percent should be used as the 
limit. Could the delineation be set at 25 percent, or 60 percent? NHTSA 
requests comments on the merits of using each of the criteria discussed 
in this document, and requests that commenters supporting the use or 
non-use of a criterion submit data supporting their position.
    Probably the most important aspect of child restraint installation 
that the agency considered when developing the criteria, was to ensure 
that a given CRS can be installed in a particular vehicle according to 
the instructions of both the child restraint and vehicle manufacturers. 
The agency acknowledges that in the field, child restraints may be 
equipped with installation features that are not required by FMVSS No. 
213. Some examples of these features are tethers that some CRS 
manufacturers recommend using on some convertible CRS when the CRS is 
installed rear-facing, and some manufacturer recommendations to use 
LATCH attachments on a booster seat, to keep a booster seat in place. 
Though top tethers on rear-facing CRSs and LATCH attachments on booster 
seats are not required by Standard No. 213, the agency believes that, 
if recommended by the child restraint manufacturer for use in attaching 
the CRS to the vehicle, such features must be able to be used in the 
particular vehicle being assessed. Accordingly, the agency believes 
that it was also important to add criteria to ensure that a CRS could 
be installed to meet the installation requirements stipulated in both 
the vehicle owner's manual and the CRS user's manual.
    Preliminary evaluation criteria were developed based on the 
aforementioned considerations and were organized into a draft 
evaluation form, which served as the basis for the pilot study 
conducted by the agency. This draft form is included in Appendix B for 
reference.

B. Pilot Study Approach

    To ensure that the preliminary evaluation criteria were robust 
enough to assess CRS fit in vehicles, the agency conducted a hands-on 
pilot study in which ten CPSTs installed various child restraints into 
different makes and models of newer vehicles. During each installation, 
the draft evaluation forms were used to gauge whether the subject child 
restraint could be properly installed in each vehicle. The pilot study 
sought to determine whether the criteria were complete enough to 
reasonably assess various and important aspects of proper CRS 
installation and whether they could sufficiently highlight instances of 
incompatibility between CRS and vehicles.
1. Vehicle Selection
    When choosing pilot study vehicles, the agency attempted to select 
various types of vehicles, including two- and four-door passenger cars, 
station wagons, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Vehicles from 
different manufacturers were selected so a wide range of designs and 
characteristics that could influence child restraint fit was included 
in the study.\26\ In addition, vehicles were chosen that had 
challenging seat contours, head restraint designs, and top tether and 
lower anchor locations. Most of the pilot study vehicles were rented 
from local car rental companies. Selection was therefore limited to 
vehicles that were available at the time of the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The 2003.5 Mazda Prot[eacute]g[eacute] was included in this 
study because it was readily available for assessment and its 
vehicle seat characteristics were considered representative of those 
observed in the modern fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows a summary of the vehicles that were selected for the 
study.

[[Page 10646]]



                      Table 2--Pilot Study Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Body style               Vehicle make model      Model year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2dr Passenger Car..............  Mitsubishi Eclipse.....            2009
2dr Passenger Car..............  Pontiac G5.............            2009
4dr Passenger Car..............  Chevrolet Impala.......            2009
4dr Passenger Car..............  Chrysler Sebring.......            2008
4dr Passenger Car..............  Dodge Charger..........            2009
4dr Passenger Car..............  Ford Focus.............            2009
4dr Passenger Car..............  Hyundai Elantra........            2009
4dr Passenger Car..............  Mazda Protege..........          2003.5
4dr Passenger Car..............  Toyota Yaris...........            2008
Station Wagon..................  Subaru Forester........            2006
Sport Utility Vehicle..........  Nissan Murano..........            2009
Sport Utility Vehicle..........  Toyota RAV4............            2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CRS Selection
    Similar to the methodology used to select pilot study vehicles, the 
agency sought child restraints from different manufacturers that 
covered a wide range of features and footprints in an effort to 
continue exploring incompatibility issues. The agency also selected CRS 
that spanned a large price range and ensured that the pilot study 
covered at least two of each of the six types of child restraints--
infant, convertible, combination, high-back booster, backless booster, 
and all-in-one seats. To conserve funds, CRS selection was limited to a 
selection of models used for the 2009 CRS Ease of Use program. The 
thirteen chosen CRS are listed in Table 3.

                  Table 3--Pilot Study Child Restraints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CRS type                    CRS model              MSRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infant.........................  Combi Shuttle EX.......            $170
Infant.........................  Graco Snugride 32......             140
Infant.........................  Safety 1st Designer 22.              80
Convertible....................  Graco ComfortSport.....              80
Convertible....................  Britax Boulevard CS....             310
Convertible....................  Sunshine Kids Radian XT             250
Combination....................  Safety 1st Summit......             100
Combination....................  Britax Frontier........             280
High-Back Booster..............  Learning Curve B505....             100
Backless Booster...............  Magna Clek Olli........             100
Backless Booster...............  Evenflo Amp............              25
All-in-One.....................  Safety 1st All in One..             140
All-in-One.....................  Evenflo Symphony.......             200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. General Pilot Study Observations

    The pilot study exposed vehicle-CRS incompatibility issues stemming 
from vehicle seat belts, lower anchorages, top tether anchorages, 
vehicle interior space, and vehicle seat geometry, each of which will 
be described in the sections to follow. The specific results of the 
pilot study are included as Appendix C of this document.
    Based on the pilot study evaluation form criteria, not every child 
restraint in the pilot study was determined to fit properly in every 
pilot study vehicle. More incompatibilities were observed during seat 
belt installations than during those with LATCH. When seat or seat back 
contour incompatibilities were observed, it often led to neither method 
of installation meeting the pilot study criteria for fit. There were no 
child restraints that were unable to fit in any pilot study vehicle 
according to the pilot study evaluation forms. Likewise, there was no 
vehicle in which none of the pilot study child restraints were 
determined to fit. However, it is clear from the chart in Appendix C 
that some vehicles had more incompatibilities with pilot study CRS than 
others. Likewise, some pilot study child restraints had more 
incompatibilities with the pilot study vehicles than others.
    In general, the evaluation criteria used for the pilot study 
permitted robust and repeatable assessments.\27\ However, it was 
determined that the evaluation form should be modified so that the act 
of filling out the assessment forms would be more logical and 
efficient. Consequently, the single evaluation form was expanded to 
three separate evaluation forms, one each for rear-facing, forward-
facing, and booster modes. This three-form approach mirrors the format 
of the agency's existing CRS Ease of Use program, follows the logic of 
4 Steps for Kids, and permits distinction between installation methods. 
Furthermore, criteria were also removed or clarified based on the pilot 
study observations.\28\ The revised forms have been included in 
Appendix D. The criteria that serve as the basis for these evaluation 
forms will be discussed below, as well as the agency's explanations of 
how these forms were derived and should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For all child restraints and installation modes assessed 
during the pilot study, two CPSTs conducted independent assessments 
and arrived at a mutual agreement as to whether a CRS could be 
properly installed in a particular vehicle.
    \28\ It was determined that removed criteria were already 
reflected in other criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Pilot Study Observations and Resulting Proposed Fit Criteria

    The following section details incompatibility observations made by 
CPSTs during the Vehicle-CRS Fit pilot study. Photographs of these 
observations can be found in the document titled, Vehicle-CRS Fit Pilot 
Study Observations, included in this

[[Page 10647]]

docket. This section also references additional widely-known vehicle-
CRS incompatibilities that may not have been observed directly in this 
study, but were known to the CPSTs through their previous or anecdotal 
experience. Through the collective expertise of the agency and the 
CPSTs participating in the pilot study, the set of modified evaluation 
forms, included in Appendix D, was developed and is thus being proposed 
for use by the agency in assessing the fit of CRS in vehicles.
    In each section, observations from the pilot study will be 
discussed and followed by the criteria the agency is recommending be 
used to assess vehicle-CRS fit. If needed, additional clarifications 
about a criterion's intention are presented after the criteria 
themselves.

A. Vehicle Seat Belts

    Prior to the introduction of LATCH, vehicle seat belts were the 
sole method of securing child restraints in vehicles. Seat belts are 
used to secure a child restraint to a vehicle by routing them through a 
structurally-reinforced belt path in the restraint. When the child 
restraint is attached tightly to the vehicle, and the child is then 
secured tightly to the CRS, the child and its restraint are effectively 
coupled to the vehicle, which ensures proper ride-down as the vehicle 
comes to a stop during a crash.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ During a crash, the vehicle's front end is designed to 
crush and absorb the crash energy, which effectively extends the 
distance, and accordingly time, over which the occupant compartment 
comes to rest. Tightly coupling the occupants to the vehicle will 
permit them to realize the full effects of riding down the crash 
with the vehicle and will reduce the forces acting on the body. 
Therefore, it is imperative that for applicable child restraints, 
not only is the child securely restrained by the internal harness, 
but also that the child restraint is tightly attached to the vehicle 
to ensure adequate ride-down. This will effectively serve to lessen 
the likelihood that the child's movement will be stopped abruptly 
because of contact with a hard vehicle surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seat belts have traditionally been a contributing factor to 
vehicle-CRS incompatibilities, especially when locking clips are 
required for proper installation.\30\ The agency has issued a number of 
regulations to address the difficulty of using a locking clip. 
Beginning in 1996, the lap belt portion of all vehicle seat belts other 
than the driver's have been required to be ``lockable'' in order to 
help eliminate the need to use locking clips.\31\ The majority of 
vehicle manufacturers choose to employ either a locking latch plate or 
a ``switchable'' retractor in order to meet this requirement. Either of 
these solutions is an improvement over the need to use additional 
devices such as a locking clip to secure the seat belt. However, the 
agency found in a study on CRS misuse that loose vehicle seat belt-CRS 
attachment was the first or second-most prevalent type of critical 
misuse in the field depending on the type of restraint.\32\ Though the 
study did not cite the exact reasons for loose seat belt installations, 
it is possible that a portion of those may have been due to a failure 
to lock the seat belt properly. Not all parents or caregivers are aware 
that seat belts must be completely pulled out to engage switchable 
retractors, nor are they aware of techniques that can help ensure 
locking latch plates remain locked. For these reasons, seat belts are 
often still misused when installing child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ A locking clip is a device, normally provided by the child 
restraint manufacturer, which keeps the lap portion of a lap/
shoulder belt tight by securing it near the latch plate. The locking 
clip prevents the seat belt (and thus the child restraint) from 
moving freely.
    \31\ Sec.  571.208, S7.1.1.5.
    \32\ Decina L.E. and Lococo K. H., Misuse of Child Restraints. 
NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 809 671, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 2004, Pages 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December of 2004, the agency published a final rule requiring 
Type II seat belts in center rear seating positions.33 34 
Previously, lap/shoulder belts were only required in outboard seating 
positions; as a result, some vehicle manufacturers had continually 
installed only Type I lap belts in the center rear seats of 
vehicles.\35\ Installing lap/shoulder belts in the center rear seating 
position allows all rear positions to be acceptable for booster seat 
use, rather than only the outboard positions. This is particularly 
important considering booster seat use has increased.\36\ Accordingly, 
booster misuse rates should decline over time as the fleet of older 
vehicles with lap belts diminishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 69 FR 70904, December 8, 2004.
    \34\ A Type II seat belt is defined by FMVSS No. 209, ``Seat 
belt assemblies,'' to be a combination of pelvic and upper torso 
restraints, which is commonly referred to as a lap/shoulder or 
three-point belt.
    \35\ A Type I seat belt is defined by FMVSS No. 209 to be a lap 
belt for pelvic restraint.
    \36\ Booster Seat Use in 2008. May 2009. NHTSA Publication No. 
DOT HS 811 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even with the introduction of LATCH, vehicle seat belts remain 
vital to the installation of child restraints in many vehicles. An 
agency LATCH study found that 25 percent of parents and caregivers 
familiar with using both lower attachments and anchors, as well as seat 
belts to secure child restraints, actually preferred seat belt 
installations over LATCH installations.\37\ In addition, there are a 
number of reasons why a seat belt installation may be the only choice 
for installing a child restraint. For one, most vehicles do not have 
lower anchors at the center rear seating position; parents who want to 
install their child restraint in that position must therefore use a 
seat belt. Another major reason is that CRS market trends towards 
higher-weight harnessed seats suggest that in the coming years there 
will be an increased move to install child restraints using vehicle 
seat belts after children exceed the manufacturer weight limits of the 
lower anchors.\38\ For these reasons, the agency believes the program 
should consider assessment criteria that relate to vehicle seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., Doyle, C.T., Child Restraint 
Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse, NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 810 
679, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 2006, 
Page 3.
    \38\ High-weight harness child restraints permit children 
weighing more than 40 lbs. to be restrained by the internal harness 
of the CRS until they reach a higher maximum weight limit stipulated 
by the CRS manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPST curriculum teaches that a child restraint is securely 
installed only if it does not move more than one inch side-to-side or 
front-to-back when pulled at the belt path. The pilot study revealed 
numerous instances in which the subject CRS could not meet this 
requirement when installed using the vehicle seat belts. To better 
restrain older children, teenagers, and adults, seat belt buckle stalks 
may be very long or may be anchored forward with respect to the seat 
bight. Unfortunately, these two seat belt characteristics can have an 
adverse effect on one's ability to achieve a sufficiently tight child 
restraint installation (i.e., enable not more than one inch side-to-
side movement), especially if the belt path on that child restraint is 
very long. In some instances, the buckle rests at the entrance to the 
belt path; this is expressly prohibited in some child restraint manuals 
as it may adversely affect the stability of the restraint. When 
positioned in a similar manner, a latch plate equipped with its own 
locking mechanism may not lock properly due to the angle at which it is 
resting.
    The agency acknowledges that the CPST curriculum permits caregivers 
to twist buckle stalks in order to achieve a tight installation or to 
prevent buckles from resting against the entrance to the belt path, as 
long as the CRS and vehicle manufacturers both allow the practice. The 
agency has received data from Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 
(IMMI) that indicates no considerable reduction in the strength of the 
seat belt webbing is observed if a flexible seat belt buckle is twisted 
three times; therefore, twisting the seat belt buckle

[[Page 10648]]

three or less times is considered acceptable practice and is often 
necessary to achieve a tight fit.\39\ The agency believes, however, 
that this practice is not well-known to the average parent or 
caregiver. In addition, many buckle stalks in the vehicle fleet cannot 
be twisted due to rigid plastic coverings. Some child restraints have 
higher belt paths than others, which can eliminate the need for 
twisting the seat belt. Therefore, for the purposes of the pilot study, 
twisting buckle stalks was not permitted to achieve proper fit in a 
seating location. NHTSA has tentatively decided it will not twist 
buckle stalks in assessing the fit of CRSs in vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ This information was received in a letter from Jerry 
Thompson, an Engineering Manager at IMMI Child Division, dated 
September 28, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some vehicles, the agency observed instances in which seat belt 
latch plate buttons interfered with belt-locking hardware outfitted on 
some infant restraints. The latch plate button is installed by the 
vehicle manufacturer to keep the latch plate in an accessible location 
for occupants to use. In a few instances throughout the pilot study, 
this interference was such that the seat belt could not be sufficiently 
tightened. In other cases, the seat belt button inhibited the proper 
use of the rear-facing child restraints' built-in seat belt lock-offs. 
Although it was not observed during the pilot study, given the wide 
range of child restraints and vehicles available in the marketplace, it 
is feasible that such buttons could interfere with lock-off hardware on 
forward-facing restraints and belt-positioning hardware on booster 
seats, as the pilot study revealed several occasions where the seat 
belt buttons in certain vehicles nearly caused such interference with 
installation for the selected CRS.
    Some child restraints are designed with multiple belt paths for 
caregivers to route the seat belt through. Sometimes a certain belt 
path must be used when the child is of a particular size or weight. Due 
to various vehicle characteristics, there are cases in which only one 
belt path can be used. For example, CPSTs in the pilot study observed 
that some vehicle seat belts are not long enough to properly install 
some child restraints using all of the available belt paths. Other 
times, one path may result in a more stable installation than the 
other. Although these instances were rare, and this issue is not 
suspected to be a widespread problem, it is a possibility in the field 
and, NHTSA tentatively believes, is worth noting.
    Though it is not a common practice in the U.S., some child 
restraint manufacturers give caregivers the option of routing the 
shoulder belt portion of the seat belt around an infant seat carrier 
rather than feeding it through the belt path. It is likely that some 
vehicle seat belts will not be long enough to be used with child 
restraints in this manner. NHTSA has tentatively decided to assess the 
belt's ability to be routed around the CRS if the CRS manual recommends 
or allows such a belt routing option. If the belt is not long enough to 
be used in this manner, NHTSA will deem the CRS as not fitting that 
seating location or vehicle.
    During the pilot study, evaluators noted that certain seat belt 
anchors were too narrowly spaced to accommodate some booster seats. 
This creates a situation where the seat belt buckle may actually sit 
behind or underneath the child and the restraint. Buckling the child 
can be difficult, if not impossible, and may not allow for proper 
routing of the lap belt portion of the seat belt across the child's 
upper legs. Narrow anchorage points for seat belts may also limit the 
ability to properly use them to install any type of child restraint, 
not just boosters, although this was not specifically observed in the 
pilot study. There may be other times, for example, when a child 
restraint (particularly at its belt path) is too wide and actually 
rests on top of the seat belt buckle. In such cases, proper routing and 
tightening of the seat belt are unlikely and the child restraint would 
therefore be deemed incompatible with that particular seating location 
or vehicle.
    In one pilot study vehicle, the seat belt was found to be 
incompatible with the belt positioning hardware on a high-back booster. 
In this case, the seat belt, when pulled from its retractor, could not 
move freely though the belt guide hardware because of incompatible 
geometry between the two.\40\ This condition can create unwanted slack 
in the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt, and present a dangerous 
situation since a loose seat belt may not restrain a child's upper body 
properly in the event of a crash. However, the pilot study participants 
found it somewhat difficult to quantify this condition with objective 
criteria. Depending on the weight of the child using the booster, the 
height to which the booster's head restraint is raised, and the force 
with which the seat belt is pulled from its retractor, different 
conclusions may be made as to the potential for unwanted shoulder belt 
slack. Our experience with the pilot study found that the majority of 
seat belt slack is generally preventable if the installer exercises due 
care; however, there can also be vehicle seat belt-booster seat 
combinations that are overly prone to the creation of slack and should 
thus be avoided. In light of this, the agency is seeking comment on the 
frequency and severity of this issue in the field, as well as any 
information about how we may develop an objective method for 
determining whether slack exists between a particular booster seat 
shoulder belt guide and the vehicle seat belt. The agency proposes to 
include an evaluation criterion for whether seat belt slack is created 
between a booster and vehicle seat belt on the final Vehicle-CRS Fit 
forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ This mounting location is sometimes referred to as the ``D-
ring'' location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above observations from the pilot study, NHTSA 
proposes to add the following criteria to its Vehicle-CRS Fit 
assessment forms in order to identify compatibility issues specific to 
child restraints and vehicle seat belts:

--Does the distance between the Type II seat belt's lap belt anchor and 
buckle allow the child restraint to be installed properly (rear-facing 
and forward-facing CRS) or the booster to be positioned properly?
--Is the seat belt length sufficient to properly install the CRS using 
all possible belt paths permitted by the CRS manufacturer and in all 
rear-facing (rear-facing CRS) modes of use or forward-facing (forward-
facing CRS) modes of use?
--Does the seat belt buckle interfere with proper CRS installation 
(rear-facing and forward-facing CRS)?
--Does the seat belt latch plate button limit the use of any lock-off 
or other hardware on the CRS or otherwise prohibit proper installation 
(rear-facing and forward-facing CRS)?

    NHTSA has tentatively determined that all criteria must be met to 
establish that a child restraint meets the fit assessment conditions 
for a given vehicle. Assessments should be made for forward-facing CRS 
and rear-facing CRS, and also for booster seats, if applicable. NHTSA 
is also proposing that if proper installation of the child restraint 
cannot be achieved with the seat belt designated for each applicable 
seating location within the vehicle, it should be determined that the 
child restraint does not meet the fit assessment conditions for seat 
belt installation for the subject vehicle.\41\

[[Page 10649]]

The agency tentatively believes that it is important that parents have 
the option to move a child restraint to a different seating position 
within the vehicle if necessary in order to accommodate adult 
passengers or additional children. Comments are requested on this 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ For those vehicles having two or more rows of seats, 
assessments will be made only for rear seating positions. 
Assessments will be made for the right front passenger seat and also 
for the front middle seat, if available, for vehicles having only 
one row of seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Top Tether Anchorages

    A child restraint's top tether attachment strap is an important 
feature because it can reduce head excursion for children positioned in 
forward-facing CRS in frontal crashes, thus reducing the likelihood 
that a child will experience head contact with the vehicle 
interior.\42\ It can not only provide stability by reducing the amount 
of forward and side movement during travel, but can also help achieve a 
tight installation. Although not required by NHTSA's standards, some 
manufacturers provide top tethers for their rear-facing child 
restraints. Accordingly, NHTSA identified the attachment and proper 
tightening of a CRS top tether as important assessments of child 
restraint fit in a vehicle. To the extent that a parent or caregiver is 
unable to attach a child restraint's top tether to the tether anchor in 
the vehicle or improperly installs the top tether because of vehicle-
CRS incompatibility, and the CRS manufacturer or vehicle manufacturer 
recommends use of the tether with the particular CRS in that rear- or 
forward-facing orientation, NHTSA tentatively believes the child 
restraint should not be identified as one that meets the fit assessment 
conditions for that vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See http://www.cpsboard.org/pdf/techmanual/StudentManual_R0108_ch6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's pilot study revealed that the location of the top 
tether anchor in relation to the head restraint and vehicle seat belt 
can be a prominent factor in determining vehicle-CRS compatibility. 
When some child restraints were properly positioned forward-facing on 
the vehicle seats in two passenger cars, the distance between the top 
of the CRS and tether anchor, which was located on the vehicle's rear 
shelf, was insufficient to permit the tether to be tightened. In these 
cases, the vehicles were not designed with regards to the minimum 
tether distance required for the installation of the subject CRS.\43\ 
Had the tether anchor been located more rearward on the vehicle shelf, 
or had the rear head restraint been higher, or in some cases 
adjustable, it is possible that the top tether attachment strap from 
the subject child restraints could have been adequately tightened. This 
was not a problem for other child restraints installed in the forward-
facing mode in these same vehicles because the backs of the other child 
restraints did not extend as high as those from the child restraints 
previously mentioned. The shorter height of these CRS permitted a 
greater distance between the top of the child restraint and the tether 
anchor, and consequently permitted proper tether adjustment and 
tightening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Here, the minimum distance required is equal to the length 
of the tether hook plus the reinforced stitching length on the 
tether strap webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the agency is also aware of instances in which a 
vehicle's tether anchor is located too far away from the respective 
seating location to permit attachment of a top tether. This is most 
commonly observed in SUVs and hatchbacks.
    Vehicle seat and head restraint designs can also pose top tether 
use problems. Non-adjustable head restraints that are smaller in size 
or that are extremely rounded on top may permit the top tether strap(s) 
to slip off of the head restraint during travel. Additionally, geometry 
differences between the CRS and the vehicle seat can sometimes permit 
the reinforced portion of the top tether webbing to catch on the 
vehicle seat or head restraint upon tightening. Consequently, a loose 
tether may result without the parent or caregiver's knowledge.
    To identify compatibility issues specific to child restraints and 
vehicle tether anchors, NHTSA has decided to propose the following 
criteria on its Vehicle-CRS Fit assessment forms:

--Can the rear-facing tether be attached to the appropriate vehicle 
tether anchor (forward-facing CRS and boosters, if applicable) or 
location in the vehicle (rear-facing CRS, if applicable)?
--Can the top tether be properly tightened (forward-facing CRS and 
boosters, if applicable) or can the rear-facing tether be properly 
tightened (rear-facing CRS, if applicable)?

    NHTSA is proposing that assessments should include whether or not 
the top tether on the child restraint can be attached to the vehicle's 
top tether anchorages and tightened. If the top tether cannot be 
attached, we would determine that the CRS does not meet the fit 
assessment conditions for the given vehicle. If the top tether can be 
attached, a further assessment of whether or not it can be tightened 
would then be made. If, upon tightening, the tether strap begins to 
slide off of the head restraint or catches on any part of the vehicle 
seat such that the tether seems taut, yet loosens or shifts position 
upon pulling the CRS from side-to-side at the belt path, the child 
restraint does not meet the aforementioned criteria. Assessments would 
be made for forward-facing CRS and also for rear-facing CRS and booster 
seats, if so equipped. For CRS equipped with a top tether and designed 
to be installed rear-facing, the agency is proposing to assess whether 
the tether can be properly attached to the vehicle when the CRS is 
installed in the rear-facing mode. Such assessments will be made only 
if the CRS user's manual instructs that tether attachment is either 
acceptable or required for the rear-facing mode and the vehicle owner's 
manual does not explicitly prohibit attachment of a rear-facing tether. 
The top tether assessment would also only be made for convertible child 
restraints placed in the rear-facing mode if the CRS user's manual 
explicitly states that tether attachment is either acceptable or 
required for the rear-facing mode.

C. Lower Anchorages

    As mentioned previously, the intent of the LATCH system was to 
introduce a user-friendly system that would make CRS installation 
independent of the seat belts. When using the lower anchor portion of 
LATCH, there is no need to lock the vehicle's seat belt when installing 
the CRS, use a locking clip, twist long belt buckle stalks to achieve a 
tight fit, or combat seat belts that are anchored forward of the seat 
belt buckles. Therefore, it was expected that LATCH would be less prone 
to incorrect routing and loose fit, two sources of misuse often 
associated with seat belt installations, and accordingly, would reduce 
misuse and incorrect installation of child restraints. This was 
evidenced by the 2006 NHTSA CRS misuse study. This study found that the 
lower attachment strap was routed through the correct path for 93 
percent of the CRS surveyed and a tight installation was achieved for 
70 percent of the CRS.44 45 Accordingly, real world 
experience demonstrates that LATCH, and in particular, the lower 
attachments, provides safety benefits to many parents and caregivers 
who experience difficulty attaching a child restraint correctly in a 
vehicle or find that the vehicle's seat belts are incompatible with a 
child restraint. However, as mentioned previously, the agency also 
recognizes that LATCH, although

[[Page 10650]]

effective, has not addressed all vehicle-CRS compatibility problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Decina, L.E., Lococo, K.H., Doyle, C.T., Child Restraint 
Use Survey: LATCH Use and Misuse, NHTSA Publication No. DOT HS 810 
679, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 2006.
    \45\ A CRS installed with lower anchorage attachments was 
considered securely installed if the lower attachment connectors 
were installed right side up, the lower attachment straps were flat 
and routed to the correct anchors, and the installation was tight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's pilot study suggested that, like seat belt anchor 
points, the design of a vehicle's lower anchorages can also present 
compatibility issues. The overwhelming majority of child restraints in 
the U.S. employ flexible lower attachments. In these systems, the lower 
attachments must first be connected to the vehicle's lower anchorages. 
Then, the additional webbing must be tightened to eliminate system 
slack and achieve a tight fit. The majority of child restraints have at 
least one push-button or tilt-lock adjustment mechanism on their lower 
attachment straps that provides tension and then eventually allows for 
that tension to be released if the CRS needs to be removed from the 
vehicle.
    In some vehicles assessed during the pilot study, incompatibilities 
were observed between the lower attachment strap adjusters and the CRS 
lower attachment path. In most cases, this occurred because the 
location of the vehicle's lower anchorages was high in relation to the 
resting surface of the CRS, thus minimizing the distance between the 
CRS lower attachment path and the vehicle's lower anchorages. In some 
cases, this was complicated by lower anchorages that protruded from the 
seat bight, which served to further decrease this distance. Similar to, 
as mentioned previously, when a seat belt buckle rests on the edge of 
the child restraint's belt path, it is undesirable for the lower 
attachment strap adjusters to contact the frame or edge of the CRS belt 
path. A proper fit could not be achieved in these cases.
    High seat bights were also observed to have compatibility issues 
with LATCH-equipped backless booster seats as well. Though booster 
seats are not required to have components that attach to LATCH anchors, 
a number of products have entered the market in recent years that use 
components that attach to lower LATCH anchors to stabilize the booster 
on the vehicle seat. When installed using its rigid lower anchors, one 
backless booster seat was unable to sit flat on the vehicle seat pan 
because the vehicle's lower anchors were located in the seat back 
rather than in its bight. A similar observation was made when 
attempting to position the same booster seat without trying to attach 
the lower rigid attachments to the vehicle anchors in that same 
position within the vehicle. Because the vehicle did not have a gap at 
its seat bight and the booster manufacturer required that the rigid 
attachments be inserted into the seat bight if they were not being 
used, the booster was once again not able to be properly positioned on 
the vehicle seat.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NHTSA tentatively believes that it should assess the 
attachment and proper tightening of the CRS lower LATCH attachments 
of a CRS when the CRS manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer 
recommends or specifies use of the lower LATCH anchorages with that 
CRS. To illustrate, although FMVSS No. 213 does not require lower 
LATCH attachments on booster seats, if the booster seat has such 
attachments and the vehicle manufacturer identifies the booster seat 
as one that fits its vehicle, then NHTSA will assess the fit of the 
booster on the vehicle seat using the lower LATCH attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other incompatibility issues were identified when attempting to 
install a LATCH-equipped backless booster seat using the rigid lower 
attachments. It was observed that if a vehicle's lower anchors were too 
far forward or exposed in relation to the seat bight, the LATCH-
equipped backless booster seat may be positioned forward on the vehicle 
seat pan and away from the vehicle seat back. In such instances, a 
large gap was created between the booster and the seat back. This may 
result in children being unable to sit flat against the seat back and 
leaning forward. Such a position can lead to increased head excursion 
during a crash. In addition, this condition may also allow children to 
slouch, whereby the lap portion of the seat belt may sit over the 
occupant's soft abdominal region instead of over the pelvis. If the 
seat belt is resting on soft tissue instead of bone, internal organs 
are more at risk in the event of a crash. The pilot study also revealed 
that a similar phenomenon can occur when traditional backless booster 
seats that are void of lower attachments are positioned against raised 
or prominent seat bights that essentially push the booster away from 
the seat back.
    To establish that a child restraint is compatible with a vehicle's 
lower anchors, the following criteria should be met:

--Can the lower attachments on the CRS (rear-facing and forward-facing 
CRS) or booster (if so equipped) be properly attached to the vehicle's 
lower anchorages?
--Can the lower attachments on the CRS (rear-facing and forward-facing 
CRS) or booster (if so equipped) be tightened, if necessary, after the 
initial connection to the lower anchorages?
--When the CRS is installed (rear-facing and forward-facing CRS) or the 
booster is positioned (booster, if so equipped) using lower anchorages, 
is there access to the vehicle's adjacent seat belt buckles?

    For the Lower Anchorages category, NHTSA is proposing to assess 
whether the CRS can be attached to the vehicle's lower anchorages. It 
would be permissible to move a seat belt buckle out of the way to do 
so. If the lower attachment straps on the CRS can be successfully 
attached to the vehicle's lower anchorages, it would then be assessed 
whether the lower attachment straps on the CRS could be adequately 
tightened to provide a secure fit and permit limited movement.\47\ 
Additionally, once the CRS is attached to the vehicle's lower anchors, 
it must be determined whether the vehicle's adjacent seat belt buckles 
can be accessed and used. However, if a vehicle manufacturer permits 
sharing of inboard lower anchorages from the outboard vehicle seating 
positions to create a center LATCH position, or if a manufacturer 
permits a center LATCH position that is offset from the center 
designated seating position, NHTSA reasons that it would be impractical 
to use the seat belt buckles from the adjacent seat positions when a 
child restraint is installed with LATCH in the created center position. 
Therefore, for such center LATCH positions, the agency is not proposing 
to assess whether there is access to the adjacent seat belts as long as 
the vehicle manufacturer specifies in the owner's manual that the seat 
belt buckles related to the adjacent seating locations cannot be used 
when the created center LATCH position is utilized. This aims to 
minimize the possibility that a consumer may improperly use or route 
the seat belt in adjacent seating locations that would be considered 
non-use positions, and would therefore be exempt from the 
aforementioned assessment. The agency is distinguishing between 
outboard and center LATCH positions because some consumers may want to 
install a child restraint in the center position, even if the vehicle 
does not offer a dedicated LATCH position at the center seat. 
Accordingly, the agency does not want to discourage vehicle 
manufacturers from including center LATCH positions, particularly in 
smaller vehicles where a dedicated center LATCH position may be 
impractical. If a vehicle manufacturer permits the sharing of inboard 
lower anchorages from outboard seating positions to create a center 
LATCH position in any one vehicle model, NHTSA will also confirm that 
the CRS user's manual does not prohibit installation of the given child 
restraint in such positions. For vehicles having a fold-down armrest in 
the center rear seating location, the agency will verify that the CRS 
manufacturer permits installation of the child restraint at such

[[Page 10651]]

locations. All assessments will be made for rear-facing and forward-
facing child restraints and also for LATCH-equipped booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Specific tightness requirements for CRS installation are 
outlined in Section IX E. of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the pilot study did not reveal instances in which a CRS 
could not be installed using LATCH if the adjacent seat belt was in 
use, the possibility may exist. The agency recognizes that using the 
seat belt in a position adjacent to a CRS installed with LATCH may be 
necessary or desirable for parents and caregivers transporting other 
adults or older children in booster seats. Therefore, the agency is 
requesting comments on whether an additional requirement should be 
added to address access to a vehicle's lower anchorages when a CRS is 
installed using the seat belt in an adjacent seating position. If the 
addition of such a requirement is deemed necessary, the agency would 
make this assessment for LATCH seating positions adjacent to a seat 
belt-installed CRS as long as the vehicle owner's manual does not 
prohibit the use of LATCH in that position when the adjacent seat belt 
is in use. Similar to the previous criterion to assess seat belt access 
when LATCH is in use, the agency is proposing that this additional 
LATCH access criterion would be applicable to created center LATCH 
positions and overlapping center LATCH positions, if permissible, as 
well as designated LATCH positions. In other words, the agency is 
proposing to apply this LATCH access requirement to every LATCH 
position in the vehicle when a CRS is installed using the vehicle seat 
belts in the adjacent seating position(s).
    This program will not assess how easily a child restraint's lower 
connectors can be either attached to or detached from a vehicle's lower 
anchors, nor will this program evaluate the likelihood that one will be 
able to misuse a vehicle's LATCH hardware. The agency recognizes that 
connector attachment may be difficult if the vehicle's lower anchors 
are recessed deep within the vehicle seat bight, if the vehicle seat 
cushion is stiff, or if clearance around the vehicle's lower anchors is 
inadequate; however, the agency tentatively concludes that evaluating 
the ease of attachment or detachment would lead to subjective, rather 
than objective, fit assessments. As the agency's intent is to provide a 
robust, repeatable evaluation of CRS fit in vehicles, the agency will 
not incorporate criteria that focus on ease of installation at this 
time. The agency hopes, however, that as child restraint and vehicle 
manufacturers work together to address compatibility, they will 
recognize and address such issues. Because the agency's misuse studies 
have shown that there is a greater likelihood that a child restraint 
will be securely installed with LATCH lower attachments than with a 
vehicle seat belt, the agency hopes that vehicle manufacturers will 
also make it easier for parents and caregivers to locate a vehicle's 
LATCH anchors within a vehicle so that they may be more intuitive to 
use.

D. Head Restraints

    Prominent, fixed head restraints can present incompatibilities 
between vehicle seats and some child restraints, especially forward-
facing restraints and high-back boosters. In some vehicles, a forward-
facing CRS was only able to make contact with the vehicle at the seat 
bight and at the head restraint and evaluators were not able to achieve 
a tight installation. In other vehicles, the installation was secure 
but the child restraint manufacturer required a specific amount of 
contact between the seat back and the restraint. In such cases, the 
head restraint's geometry prevented the child restraint from contacting 
the back of the vehicle seat, which violated the child restraint 
manufacturer's instructions. This problem may have been eliminated for 
some high-back booster seats if the head restraint was removable or 
adjustable instead of fixed. As mentioned previously, pilot study 
evaluators also observed instances where top tethers could not be 
sufficiently tightened over fixed head restraints when there was not 
adequate distance for attachment of the tether hook. In all of these 
cases, the child restraint did not meet the proposed conditions for 
proper installation.
    In light of these observations, NHTSA is proposing to include one 
head restraint-related criterion on its Vehicle-CRS Fit Assessment 
forms. In order to establish that a child restraint fits in a vehicle, 
the following should be met:

--Does the vehicle head restraint interfere with proper CRS 
installation (forward-facing CRS) or booster positioning (high-back 
booster only)?

    To eliminate incompatibilities between head restraints and child 
restraints, all available methods of remedy indicated in the vehicle 
and/or CRS owner's manual may be employed. These can include, but are 
not limited to head restraint removal, moving the head restraint upward 
into a locked position, and tilting the head restraint rearward. If 
proper installation of the child restraint cannot be achieved using all 
listed remedy methods, it would be determined that the child restraint 
does not fit in the subject vehicle.

E. CRS Installation, Use, and Tightness

    In the event of a crash, it is imperative that a child restraint be 
tightly coupled to the vehicle so that the child occupant is afforded 
the full benefits of riding down the crash with the vehicle. Vehicle 
design factors such as space limitations and seat characteristics can 
pose significant challenges for the installation of certain types of 
child restraints. Additionally, a variety of CRS characteristics, 
including assorted footprint shapes, belt path locations, belt 
positioning features, and overall sizes, can create challenges for 
vehicle seat cushions. While it is beneficial for parents and 
caregivers to identify vehicle-CRS combinations that have a wide 
variety of options available to meet their needs, this diversity may 
make it difficult for parents and caregivers to identify vehicle-CRS 
combinations that provide to a proper fit.
    During the agency's pilot study, it was observed that some vehicles 
were simply too small to accommodate certain CRS types or certain CRS 
orientations. In two vehicles, the roofline of the vehicle limited the 
height to which the head restraints of certain combination and high-
back booster seats could be raised in the outboard seating locations. 
This is especially important since the head restraints on most child 
restraints designed for forward-facing installation, including many 
boosters, now come with wider and more padded side wings in the head 
area. These are typically comprised of energy absorbing foam and are 
intended not only to confine the head, but also to attenuate lateral 
loads. If the parent or caregiver is unable to fully adjust the 
headrest, the feature of the booster or other forward-facing child 
restraint may not be able to be used, and the child's head may still be 
able to extend above the height at which the head restraint on the CRS 
or booster can adjust depending on the slope of the roofline.
    Other vehicles did not offer adequate space to properly position 
rear-facing child restraints. In newer vehicles, certain rear-facing 
child restraints may interfere with a vehicle's advanced air bag 
sensors if the restraints are allowed to rest against the front seat 
back. In several vehicles studied, unless the vehicle's front seats 
were set forward of the fore-aft mid-track seat adjustment position, 
most convertible restraints contacted the front seat back when

[[Page 10652]]

positioned rear-facing.\48\ For those cases, such contact was 
prohibited by the respective CRS manufacturers. The agency recognizes, 
however, that some CRS manufacturers permit their child restraints to 
rest against the back of the vehicle seat. The CPST curriculum also 
acknowledges that such contact is acceptable if it is not expressly 
prohibited in either the vehicle owner's manual or the CRS user's 
manual.\49\ Accordingly, the agency is proposing to adopt criteria to 
assess whether a CRS can be installed rear-facing so as to achieve the 
appropriate distance relative to the front seat back, as prescribed by 
the CRS manufacturer in the CRS owner's manual. If the CRS owner's 
manual does not provide guidance as to whether CRS contact with the 
front seat back is permitted or not, the agency is proposing to permit 
such contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The mid-track position is indicative of the seating 
location of the mid-sized male driver dummy in frontal and side NCAP 
tests.
    \49\ See http://www.cpsboard.org/techmanual.htm, Page 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proper installation could also not be achieved for several infant 
restraints positioned in the middle rear seating location in some 
vehicles because the carrier handle contacted the center console of the 
vehicle when placed in its manufacturer-prescribed travel position. If 
the handle is adjusted to the wrong position for travel, during a 
crash, it may contact the vehicle seat or other vehicle components 
during rebound and may break, injuring the child or other 
occupants.\50\ Therefore, the agency is also proposing to adopt 
criteria to assess whether proper placement of the CRS carrier handle 
can be achieved for rear-facing CRS, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See http://www.car-safety.org/guide.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPST curriculum also teaches that not only must a CRS not move 
more than one inch from side-to-side or front-to-back when pulled at 
the belt or lower attachment strap path with one hand to be properly 
installed, but further specifies that no more than 20 percent of the 
child restraint's footprint may hang over the edge of the vehicle 
seat.\51\ We are considering using this criterion to assess the CRS 
stability on the vehicle seat pan since it has been included in the 
curriculum and is a familiar metric in the child passenger safety 
community. However, as stated earlier in this preamble, we request 
comment on the merits of the 20 percent criterion. Should a different 
value be used instead?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See http://www.cpsboard.org/techmanual.htm, Page 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the aforementioned installation issues, NHTSA is 
proposing that the following criteria are considered when assessing fit 
in the ``CRS Installation, Use, and Tightness'' category:

--Does more than 20% of the CRS (rear-facing and forward-facing CRS) or 
booster base/bottom hang over the edge of the vehicle seat pan?
--Can the CRS be installed so that there is no more than 1 inch of 
movement side-to-side or front-to-back when pulled at the LATCH path or 
belt path (rear-facing and forward-facing CRS)?
--Can the CRS be installed rear-facing so as to achieve the appropriate 
distance relative to the front seat back, as stated in the CRS owner's 
manual, if applicable? Must also be able to achieve proper placement of 
CRS carrier handle, if applicable (rear-facing CRS only).
--If the harness is intended to be accessed when the CRS is installed, 
can it be tightened (rear-facing and forward-facing CRS)?
--Does the positioning prohibit full adjustment of the booster's head 
restraint or the use of any belt positioning hardware (booster only)?

    Although this program will not be evaluating vehicle-CRS 
combinations for ease of fit at this time, the agency is adopting 
certain criteria that should help ensure that the installation and use 
of recommended child restraints will be less difficult for parents and 
caregivers.
    The vast majority of harnessed child restraints currently in the 
U.S. market use a ``continuous'' or ``one-pull'' mechanism to tighten 
the harness onto the child once s/he has been secured in the restraint. 
This style of harness tightening mechanism is for use while the CRS is 
installed in the vehicle, so that the parent or caregiver can 
appropriately adjust the harness to fit snugly on their child prior to 
each and every trip. The agency is proposing that in order to meet the 
fit recommendation conditions, child restraints with harness tightening 
systems that are intended to be accessed and used while the CRS is 
installed must actually be able to be accessed and used. If the harness 
tightening mechanism is not intended to be accessible according to the 
CRS owner's manual when the CRS is installed in the vehicle, this would 
not be a proposed requirement for vehicle fit.
    The agency is also proposing a criterion that promotes CRS 
installations without the use of items that did not come from their 
manufacturers. For example, for proper installation, a rear-facing CRS 
must achieve a proper recline on the vehicle seat and must achieve 
proper tightness without the use of after-market objects such as pool 
noodles or rolled towels. Although it is common practice in the field 
to use such items, the items are used to solve incompatibility 
problems. Thus, the agency does not believe that a child seat fit 
recommendation within this program should depend upon the use of items 
to fix incompatibility between the CRS and the vehicle.
    We believe, in most cases, requiring no more than 20 percent of the 
CRS bottom to overhang the vehicle seat pan and less than one inch of 
movement at the belt path when installed should result in a proper, 
tight installation. However, though not explicitly stated, it is often 
the case that a child restraint must rest securely on the vehicle seat 
pan and against the seat back to achieve no more than one inch of 
movement when installed. As indicated previously, vehicle features such 
as fixed head restraints may position larger forward-facing restraints 
or high-back boosters away from the vehicle's seat back, generating 
large gaps behind the CRS. High seat bights and severe vehicle seat pan 
contours can also create gaps behind or under a CRS. In addition, some 
child restraint manufacturer instructions stipulate that proper 
installation requires a certain amount of contact between the vehicle 
seat back and the rear of a child restraint when installed forward-
facing. The agency is unsure as to the specific reasons for this 
requirement and is seeking comment on this issue.
    It should be noted that the agency is proposing to permit the 
adjustment of vehicle seat backs, if possible, to achieve appropriate 
CRS contact with the vehicle seat back. This proposal is aligned with 
S7(a) of FMVSS No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems,'' which 
currently permits seat back adjustment in order to attach the SFAD 2 to 
a vehicle's lower anchorages during testing.\52\ Further, adjusting the 
seat back so that the child restraint would rest securely against the 
seat back is a reasonable step that a parent or caregiver may take. For 
forward-facing and high-back booster seats, the agency will also permit 
evaluators to use all available remedy methods indicated in the vehicle 
owner's manual to adjust head restraints that may cause gaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ SFAD 2 is the static force application device used in FMVSS 
No. 225 testing to test lower anchorage and tether anchorage 
strength when seat belts are NOT used to secure a child restraint 
system in the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the pilot study, the agency was unsure not only as to 
whether there was a need to develop a criterion to address CRS 
stability on the vehicle seat back, but also as to what would qualify

[[Page 10653]]

as an objective criterion. Accordingly, the agency used the pilot study 
to both assess the need for a criterion, and also to evaluate a 
potential objective criterion. In particular, the agency assessed 
whether requiring a minimum of 50 percent contact between the CRS and 
the vehicle seat back was needed to ensure proper fit. That is, if a 
forward facing CRS or a booster could not be installed such that at 
least 50 percent of its rear surface was in contact with the vehicle 
seat back, then a note to that effect was made on the pilot study 
evaluation forms, as shown in Appendix C.
    The agency also evaluated whether this criterion, if needed, was 
both sufficient and objective. For the purposes of the pilot study, it 
was not necessary for a child restraint to meet this requirement to 
achieve acceptable fit.\53\ Although the agency observed several 
instances during the pilot study in which child restraints could not be 
installed in certain vehicles to meet this requirement, with the 
exception of one vehicle-CRS combination, each of these vehicle-CRS 
combinations also failed to meet an additional fit requirement. Some of 
the restraints that did not meet the seat back contact requirement 
could not be installed to meet the CRS manufacturer's installation 
instructions; others, when installed, could be moved more than one inch 
side-to-side or front-to-back. For these reasons, and since the agency 
could not find data regarding an appropriate amount of surface area 
contact between a child restraint and the vehicle seat back or seat 
pan, NHTSA is specifically seeking comment on whether a vehicle seat 
back-to-CRS contact criterion is necessary and should be included on 
the final set of evaluation forms. If such a criterion is deemed 
necessary, the agency is also seeking comment on what the appropriate, 
objective criteria should be. Similarly, the agency is also seeking 
comment on whether it should adopt a requirement that assesses CRS 
stability on a vehicle seat pan. Although such a criterion was not 
evaluated during the pilot study, the agency did observe several 
instances in which large gaps could be seen under an installed CRS due 
to CRS incompatibility with vehicle seat bights or seat pan contours. 
The agency is also seeking comment on what an appropriate, objective 
seat pan contact criterion would be, should it be deemed necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ During the pilot study, the agency made an attempt to 
develop an objective criterion for contact between the CRS and the 
vehicle seat and felt 50 percent contact was a reasonable starting 
point for evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is proposing an additional assessment that pertains to 
whether a rear-facing CRS contacts the vehicle seat in front of it when 
installed. Certain vehicle manufacturers prohibit rear-facing child 
restraints from touching the front seat back because of potential 
interference with advanced air bag sensors. Similarly, child restraint 
manufacturers may also require that an installed child restraint may 
not come within a specified distance of the front seat back. NHTSA 
tentatively believes that, if the CRS user's manual or the vehicle 
owner's manual specifies that either the child restraint may not 
contact the seat back in front or that a certain distance must be 
maintained between the CRS and the back of the front seat, we should 
take this into consideration. The child restraint should be installed 
and assessed for fit in the vehicle such that the specified distance 
(if any) is maintained. For fit assessments under the vehicle-CRS 
program, the agency is proposing that manufacturers make two 
assessments with respect to the front seat position--one with the front 
seat set to its mid-position on its seat track and one with the front 
seat set to its forward-most position on its seat track.\54\ The agency 
acknowledges that not all front seats will be able to be positioned in 
their mid-track position when a CRS is installed rear-facing in the 
seat behind it. As long as the front seat can be placed in any lockable 
position with its seat back at the vehicle manufacturer's nominal seat 
back angle, a CRS can be considered to meet the fit assessment 
conditions in that vehicle. While it may be impractical to move the 
driver's seat to its full forward position while operating the vehicle, 
the consumer has the option of moving the front passenger seat of a 
vehicle to that location to accommodate a rear-facing CRS, even if that 
means other adult passengers may also have to sit in the rear seat. The 
agency expects manufacturers to note any fit recommendations that 
require a front seat to be placed forward of the mid-track location. We 
intend to disseminate that information to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Mid-position for these fit assessments is taken to be the 
midpoint between the full-forward and full-rear position of the seat 
on its mid-track, using only the primary seat fore-aft controls. If 
a particular vehicle is available with different front seat options, 
the manufacturer should exercise due care by assessing fit in the 
vehicle seat whose mid-track seat position would be rear-most with 
respect to the child restraint. During all assessments, the front 
seat back should be set to the vehicle manufacturer's nominal seat 
back angle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency understands that vehicles of the same make and model can 
have different upholstery and options that may affect the installation 
of a child restraint. In the agency's experience, however, these 
variations have not been severe enough to affect the ability to install 
the same child restraint within variations of one vehicle make and 
model. That said, the agency expects vehicle manufacturers to exercise 
due care; if a particular trim line or vehicle option will have an 
effect on the consumer's ability to achieve proper vehicle-CRS fit, the 
manufacturer should not recommend that vehicle-CRS combination for this 
program.

F. Vehicle Owner's Manual

    Proper installation of a child restraint requires that the parent 
or caregiver read and follow all the requirements of both the vehicle 
owner's manual and the child restraint user's manual. However, NHTSA is 
aware of some cases in which the vehicle cannot accommodate the child 
restraint properly due to constraints imposed by either the child 
restraint manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer. As such, NHTSA has 
decided to propose the following criterion in the ``Vehicle Owner's 
Manual'' category for rear-facing CRS, forward-facing CRS, and 
boosters:

--Can the CRS be installed (rear-facing and forward-facing CRS) or 
booster be positioned to meet both the restraint manufacturer's and the 
vehicle manufacturer's instructions?

    It is important for parents and caregivers to follow all 
instructions from both child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, to 
ensure that the maximum protection possible is afforded. If a child 
restraint's user's manual advises that the CRS should not be used in a 
vehicle having a particular type of seating arrangement, this restraint 
would not meet the assessment conditions. That is, NHTSA would deem 
this CRS as not fitting a vehicle with that type of seating 
arrangement, even if the vehicle manufacturer had identified the CRS as 
one that fits the vehicle. Such an instance may arise if a vehicle 
manufacturer recommended a child restraint for a particular vehicle 
that has a specific type of side air bag and the CRS manufacturer's 
instructions prohibit the installation of that particular CRS next to 
that type of side air bag.
    A lack of information can be challenging for parents and 
caregivers. It is prudent for both vehicle and child restraint 
manufacturers to provide sufficient information regarding proper use. 
As observed in the pilot study, there are instances in which specific 
features cannot be used or in which the full use of features on the 
restraint

[[Page 10654]]

cannot be realized. Not only can this be a disappointment to 
caregivers, but it can also result in consumers improperly installing 
the child restraint. For example, suppose a vehicle manufacturer 
established a maximum weight for children who should be using CRSs with 
the LATCH system, but did not include the LATCH anchor limit 
information in the vehicle owner's manual. The harnessed restraint 
installed with LATCH should be reinstalled with the seat belt when the 
vehicle's LATCH anchor weight limits are exceeded. However, a parent 
who was not aware of the weight limit might fail to reinstall the CRS 
with the vehicle belt after his or her child's weight exceeded the 
vehicle's LATCH anchor weight limit.
    Along similar lines, the vehicle should accommodate the child 
restraint so that the CRS may be installed to meet the child restraint 
manufacturer's instructions. For example, for rear-facing infant seats, 
the carry handle's proper travel position must be reached. If the carry 
handle makes contact with the vehicle's front seat backs or center 
console when placed in this position and either the vehicle owner's 
manual or the child restraint user's manual prohibits such contact, the 
child seat should not be installed for use in this position in the 
subject vehicle. A similar rationale should be applied for convertible 
seats and/or all-in-one seats for which seat back contact is prohibited 
when positioned rear-facing. Another example may be when a forward-
facing child restraint's user's manual states that the restraint's seat 
back must make full contact with the vehicle seat back, but this 
condition cannot be achieved because of the seat back or seat pan 
contour, a high seat bight, or head restraint interference. The 
restraint should have the ability to be properly utilized in every mode 
of use and in every adjustment position as described in the manual so 
that parents and caregivers can properly adjust the child restraint to 
accommodate the growth of their child(ren).

G. Weight Limits

    Most forward-facing child restraints are equipped with internal 
harness systems that are designed for children weighing 40 pounds or 
less; however, many child restraint manufacturers now make forward-
facing child restraints that are designed for heavier, taller children. 
These child restraints come with an internal harness system that can be 
used for children weighing up to 65 pounds, and in some cases, 80 
pounds. As mentioned previously, these restraints are informally known 
as ``high-weight harness'' restraints. For vehicles that have 
established child weight limits for their LATCH anchors and those 
weight limits are lower than the upper child weight limits of these 
high-weight harness restraints, parents and caregivers should not 
install or continue to use these CRSs using the LATCH system when 
children surpass the upper weight range allowed by the vehicle LATCH 
anchors. In most cases, when the child's weight exceeds the vehicle 
manufacturer's LATCH child weight limit, the child restraint's lower 
attachments and/or top tether may have to be detached from the vehicle, 
and the vehicle seat belt is then used to install the child restraint. 
In some instances, however, the weight limit established by the vehicle 
manufacturer for the vehicle's top tether anchor may be higher than 
that for the vehicle's lower anchors and the top tether may continue to 
be used after the CRS transitions from LATCH to a seat belt, until a 
new weight threshold is reached. Regardless of whether the CRS is 
installed with lower attachments or seat belts, many vehicle and child 
restraint manufacturers require that the tether also be disconnected 
once the child reaches a certain weight.
    As some vehicle manufacturers do not include information pertaining 
to the child weight limits for LATCH use in the vehicle owner's 
manuals, NHTSA is concerned that many parents and caregivers are not 
given information as to whether they may have to disconnect the child 
restraint from the LATCH anchors and use the vehicle seat belts as 
their child gets heavier. There can also be confusion if the weight 
limits of the CRS and the vehicle LATCH system do not match. To ensure 
that parents and caregivers are provided with adequate information for 
proper restraint use and to improve the fit of CRSs in vehicles, NHTSA 
is proposing the following scenarios to assist vehicle manufacturers in 
their fit assessment process. In the following scenarios, the LATCH 
lower anchors and the top tether anchor have the same child weight 
limit or a LATCH weight limit is not provided by the vehicle 
manufacturer.
     If the recommended CRS has a maximum child weight limit 
that is 40 pounds or less, NHTSA will evaluate fit using LATCH lower 
anchors (with tether) or using seat belts (with tether), at each 
applicable seating position;
     If the recommended CRS has a maximum child weight limit 
that is greater than 40 pounds and the vehicle manufacturer does 
include a child weight limit for LATCH use in the vehicle owner's 
manual, NHTSA will evaluate fit at each applicable seating position as 
follows:
    (1) If the recommended CRS's maximum child weight limit is less 
than or equal to the child weight limit specified in the vehicle 
owner's manual for LATCH use, vehicle-CRS fit may be assessed using 
LATCH lower anchors (with tether) or using seat belts (with tether);
    (2) If the recommended CRS's maximum child weight limit is greater 
than the child weight limit specified in the vehicle owner's manual for 
LATCH use, vehicle-CRS fit may be assessed using:
    (a) LATCH lower anchors (with tether) or seat belts (with tether)--
for children weighing up to the child weight limit specified in the 
vehicle owner's manual for LATCH use; and
    (b) Seat belts only--for children weighing above the child weight 
limit specified in the vehicle owner's manual for LATCH use.
     If the recommended CRS has a maximum child weight limit 
that is greater than 40 pounds and the vehicle manufacturer does NOT 
include a child weight limit for LATCH use in the vehicle owner's 
manual, NHTSA will evaluate fit at each applicable seating position 
using:
    (1) LATCH lower anchors (with tether) or seat belts (with tether)--
for children weighing up to 40 pounds; and
    (2) Seat belts only--for children weighing more than 40 pounds.
    The agency believes the situation can exist where a vehicle 
manufacturer could specify a child weight limit for the LATCH system in 
which the lower anchors have a limit that differs from the weight limit 
of the top tether. In those situations, we believe the below scenarios 
would be appropriate for determining whether the lower anchors and top 
tether should be used. With regard to the lower anchors, we propose 
that NHTSA will attach the lower anchors if the CRS child weight limit 
is less than or equal to the anchor's child weight limit provided by 
the vehicle manufacturer. If the CRS child weight limit is greater than 
the vehicle's anchors child weight limit, we would not attach lower 
anchors and would use seat belts instead when assessing the fit of the 
CRS as the CRS is configured for children weighing above the child 
weight limit specified in the vehicle's owner manual for LATCH lower 
anchors. With regard to the top tether, we propose that NHTSA will 
attach the tether if the CRS child weight limit is less than or equal 
to the tether child weight limit provided by the vehicle manufacturer. 
If the CRS child weight limit is greater than the vehicle's tether

[[Page 10655]]

weight limit, we would not attach the top tether. That is, we would 
assess fit without using the tether. A summary of the above scenarios 
is shown in Appendix E.
    If NHTSA finds that a CRS does not fit a vehicle seating position 
when attached by the LATCH system or the seat belt system as described 
here, NHTSA plans to take action as proposed in the ``Program 
Distribution'' section (VII-C).

H. Rear-Facing CRS

    Frontal crashes are the most frequently occurring types of crashes. 
In a frontal crash, a rear-facing CRS acts to cradle the child, 
prevents the child's head from snapping backward with respect to its 
body, and helps distribute crash forces over the child's head, neck, 
and back, thereby reducing the potential for injury to any one body 
region. It is especially important to face infants (children under one 
year old AND under 20 lbs) rear-facing, as the child's neck has not yet 
matured to support the child's head in a frontal crash.
    To balance safety and comfort for children restrained rear-facing, 
it is also imperative that parents and caregivers achieve the 
appropriate recline angle for rear-facing restraints.\55\ This angle, 
which is recommended by the CRS manufacturer, is typically specified to 
be between 30 and 45 degrees from vertical, and must be determined when 
the vehicle is on a level surface. Child restraint manufacturers often 
equip rear-facing child restraints with a level indicator so that 
caregivers can install the CRS at the appropriate angle. The prescribed 
angle must be especially maintained for newborns to prevent their 
airways from being restricted. As evidenced by the agency's pilot 
study, parents and caregivers may find it particularly difficult to 
achieve the appropriate recline angle when installing a rear-facing CRS 
in a vehicle that has an extreme seat pan contour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's pilot study revealed several instances in which anti-
rebound bars, equipped on some child restraints, increased stability on 
the vehicle seat, particularly for the rear center seating 
position.\56\ The agency also observed that these devices can actually 
help parents and caregivers to achieve and maintain the recommended 
recline angle for the CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ To limit inertia-induced rotation of a rear-facing child 
restraint upon rebound in a frontal or rear impact crash, many CRS 
come equipped with an anti-rebound bar. This device serves not only 
to transmit rotational forces seen by the CRS into the vehicle seat 
back during sudden changes in velocity, but also may reduce the 
chance of injuries resulting from a child's contact with the vehicle 
seat during rebound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these considerations in mind, the agency is proposing the 
following additional assessment criteria for rear-facing CRS:

--Can the CRS be installed to the recline angle specified by the 
manufacturer?
--Can the anti-rotational device, if applicable, be adjusted/operated/
installed properly?

    A rear-facing child restraint should be able to be installed at the 
manufacturer's prescribed angle (using any level indicators included) 
when the vehicle is on level ground. The agency is not proposing to 
permit the use of pool noodles, towels, or other objects to achieve the 
proper angle for the reasons specified previously. NHTSA is also 
proposing that an assessment of the installation, operation, and 
adjustment of anti-rotational devices be made for applicable CRS when 
installed rear-facing. If the device cannot be used, or if using it 
prohibits a tight fit, the restraint would not meet the assessment 
conditions for fit.

XI. Conclusions and Effective Date

    For the reasons described above, the agency believes that there is 
a need to address vehicle-CRS fit via a consumer information program. 
We are proposing that a voluntary Vehicle-CRS Fit assessment program 
would be an effective method of meeting this need, as our pilot study 
showed it to be a viable option. To fulfill the participation 
conditions for the program, the agency is proposing that vehicle 
manufacturers follow a list of criteria, similar to those the agency is 
proposing in Appendix D, to determine CRS that fit in various vehicle 
models.
    Comments are requested on the program, including the criteria 
described in this document to assess a proper fit of a CRS in a 
vehicle, and the conditions we are considering setting for 
participation in the program (conditions that vehicle manufacturers 
have to meet to have their information listed on Safercar.gov).
    We are proposing that the program begin with vehicle model year 
2012. However, we are requesting comments on the appropriate lead time 
for vehicle manufacturers to prepare for and participate in the 
program. Under our proposed program, vehicle manufacturers will submit 
recommendations of CRS that fit in their vehicle models to the agency 
via the Buying a Safer Car submission, which is collected annually. 
Although recommendations will be valid only for vehicle-CRS pairs, 
vehicle manufacturers need not provide data for all of their vehicle 
models in order to participate. The agency hopes that over time, a 
wealth of information will be generated.
    As discussed, in the interest of time and simplicity, the proposed 
program only includes objective fit criteria. Such objective criteria 
quantify fit in a clear manner, which vehicle manufacturers can quickly 
comprehend and use to start providing accurate assessments. The agency 
plans to reevaluate the program after its inception to ensure that 
consumers are receiving useful and complete information. If the agency 
determines that it is warranted and practical, additional CRS ease of 
fit criteria could be added. The agency also expects to revisit other 
aspects of the program, such as the number and type of fit suggestions 
being made by vehicle manufacturers. In particular, if the program is 
adopted, as proposed, the agency may reevaluate whether vehicle 
manufacturers may continue to claim vehicle-CRS fit for either LATCH or 
vehicle belts, or decide if the manufacturer must instead claim fit for 
both systems of attachment.
    While vehicle manufacturers will be expected to report CRS fit 
under the proposed program, we expect there to be motivation for CRS 
manufacturers to share in the process by identifying vehicles that 
their products can fit and reporting their findings to vehicle 
manufacturers. This serves both the vehicle manufacturers' needs, the 
CRS manufacturers' needs, and consumers' needs. At this time, the 
agency does not plan to collect CRS fit information from CRS 
manufacturers directly. The agency believes that, in the interest of 
time, requesting this information from the vehicle manufacturers is the 
most appropriate approach. As mentioned, NCAP's Buying a Safer Car 
information request should permit NHTSA to gather this information from 
the vehicle manufacturers in an organized and efficient manner. 
Furthermore, the agency does not currently have a means to collect 
similar information from the CRS manufacturers. That being said, in the 
interest of providing consumers with a greater number and variety of 
CRS from which to choose from, the agency is requesting comments on an 
alternative or additional approach to collecting this information.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the 
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is 
not required to respond to a

[[Page 10656]]

collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection 
displays a valid OMB control number with an expiration date. Before 
seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must publish a document in the 
Federal Register providing a 60-day public comment period and otherwise 
consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning 
each proposed collection of information.
    NHTSA believes that the consumer information program described in 
this request for comments, if implemented, may result in a collection 
of information burden on motor vehicle manufacturers, even if the 
manufacturers provide the information voluntarily. In a separate 
Federal Register document, NHTSA will provide a full description of the 
proposed collection of information, including: (1) A discussion of the 
need for the information and the proposed use of the information; (2) a 
description of the likely respondents (including estimated number and 
proposed frequency of response to the collection of information); and 
(3) an estimate of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 
resulting from the collection of information. A 60-day public comment 
period will be provided when the description of the proposed collection 
of information is published.

XIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will the agency consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on 
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Issued on: February 18, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

Appendix A: Worldwide Child Restraint Consumer Information Programs

    In developing NHTSA's Vehicle-CRS Fit program, the agency 
considered other international consumer information programs for child 
restraints. Some of the most prominent are briefly explained below.

A. Child Restraints Evaluation Program (CREP)

    The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority joined with the 
National Roads and Motorists Association and the Royal Automobile Club 
of Victoria to establish a joint program to assess both the relative 
performance and the ease of using child restraints available in 
Australia. The resulting program, which began in 1994, is known as 
CREP, or the Child Restraints Evaluation Program. In addition to 
frontal and side impact sled testing of child restraints based on the 
Australian Standard AS 1754, CREP covers installation and compatibility 
with vehicles and features specific to the child restraint itself. The 
CREP criteria assess how easily child restraints can be installed as 
well as how easily a child can be secured. They also include an 
evaluation of the instructions, the clarity and quality of labeling and 
packaging, and vehicle compatibility. CREP does not address CRS 
compatibility as it relates to specific vehicles; therefore, the agency 
is not proposing this approach.

B. Consumers Union

    Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is a 
nonprofit membership organization that evaluates child restraints in 
dynamic sled tests, assesses their ease of use, and evaluates their 
compatibility with vehicles. In the United States, CU rates child 
restraints by evaluating the ease of using installation and harness 
features as well as the ease of placing and removing the child in the 
restraint. To evaluate compatibility, a few vehicles are selected from 
each model year that span a variety of body types and features related 
to child restraint installation. CU raters perform CRS installations in 
each of these vehicles to generally assess ease of installation. They 
do not, however, publish specific combinations or suggestions for fit 
between child restraints and vehicles. In addition, CU conducts sled 
testing to assign a dynamic performance rating to

[[Page 10657]]

the child restraint. All of the items are evaluated on a five-part 
scale using the following rankings: ``Excellent,'' ``Very good,'' 
``Good,'' ``Fair,'' and ``Poor.'' The ease of use, installation, and 
dynamic performance ratings are all combined into an overall rating for 
consumers based on the same five-part scale. Because the agency is 
primarily focused on proposing a program that addresses vehicle-CRS 
compatibility as it relates to specific vehicle and restraint pairs, 
CU's method of evaluating CRS was not selected.

C. EuroNCAP

    The European New Car Assessment Program, or EuroNCAP, also provides 
consumers with child occupant protection ratings for its vehicles. 
Vehicle manufacturers recommend child restraints suitable for 
installation in their products during their offset frontal and 90-
degree side impact crash tests.\57\ Each vehicle's rear seat is fitted 
with two child restraints: One suitable for a 3-year-old child and 
another suitable for an 18-month-old infant. Technicians evaluate the 
installation of the child restraints prior to the crash tests, and they 
assess the quality and completeness of the child restraint's labeling 
information. The dynamic performance of the child restraint is 
determined by evaluating injury readings from child dummies placed in 
these child restraints. It is then combined with the installation and 
labeling evaluation as part of a vehicle's overall child protection 
rating. Points earned during the evaluation are converted into a star 
rating. The overall child protection ratings are attributed to the 
vehicle in question rather than the particular child restraint.\58\ In 
addition, the ratings are specific to that combination of vehicle and 
CRS and do not necessarily indicate the safety performance of other 
child restraints in that vehicle. At this time, there are no stand-
alone evaluations of child restraints conducted by EuroNCAP. Due to the 
fact that only a small portion of EuroNCAP's approach is related to 
vehicle-CRS fit, the agency is not proposing to use this method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The EuroNCAP primarily provides consumers with crash safety 
ratings for vehicles sold throughout Europe. The program is funded 
by various European governments and private motoring clubs. EuroNCAP 
has traditionally rated vehicles for crashworthiness based on an 
offset frontal crash test at 40 mph (64 km/h) and a 90 degree side 
impact crash test at 31 mph (50 km/h). Beginning in 2009, a 
previously optional side impact pole test became a mandatory part of 
the crashworthiness rating.
    \58\ However, the child restraints tested in each vehicle are 
still displayed on the EuroNCAP Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Japan NCAP (JNCAP)

    The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, in 
cooperation with the National Organization for Automotive Safety & 
Victims' Aid, tests and evaluates the safety of automobiles as part of 
its New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP). In 2002, the JNCAP began rating 
child restraints for crash protection as well as usability.
    JNCAP dynamically rates Japan's most popular child restraints by 
conducting a frontal sled test in excess of the country's minimum child 
restraint performance requirements.\59\ Child restraints containing 
age-appropriate dummies are subjected to a 35 mph (56 km/h) sled pulse 
which is based on the characteristics of the European child restraint 
safety standard, Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 44 (ECE 
R44). The child restraints are installed on a sled buck based on the 
Toyota Estima, a popular family vehicle similar to the Toyota Sienna in 
the U.S. The rating is comprised of an evaluation of dummy readings and 
kinematics, the level of physical damage (if any) to the child 
restraint, and the release (if any) of child restraint buckles or other 
hardware. A four-tier rating system is used: ``Excellent,'' ``Good,'' 
``Normal,'' and ``Not Recommended.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ To be sold in Japan, child restraints may be certified to 
ECE R44, U.S. FMVSS No. 213, or Japan's own regulation, JIS D 0401. 
The number of child restraints tested each year varies, but in April 
2009, results were published for five CRS that were deemed 
``currently available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JNCAP's usability ratings are very similar to the structure and 
content of NHTSA's Ease of Use (EOU) program for child restraint 
usability. Five child restraint specialists rate each child restraint 
chosen for dynamic testing across five categories of usability, each of 
which contains a number of different features for evaluation. The 
specialists in this program rate each feature on a scale of 1 to 5, 
with ``3'' representing an ``average'' feature. The ratings given by 
all five specialists for each of the five categories of usability are 
averaged; all of the features within each category are then averaged as 
well. No overall rating is provided, but the five usability category 
scores are presented to the consumer as a numerical value from 1 to 5. 
Because JNCAP's ratings system does not address vehicle-to-CRS 
compatibility, this approach is not being proposed.

E. New Program for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems (NPACS) 
and the Child Seat Rating Scheme

    On August 3, 2009, the United Kingdom Transport Research Laboratory 
(TRL) announced it would launch a new five-star rating scheme for child 
restraints in 2010. In its inception, TRL relied heavily on the NPACS 
(New Programme for the Assessment of Child-restraint Systems) protocol 
published by the U.K. Department for Transport. Though all child 
restraints sold in the U.K. must meet the minimum performance standards 
of ECE R44, TRL's new program will subject products to the NPACS 
testing protocol, which goes above and beyond the minimum performance 
standards set forth by ECE R44. The NPACS protocol (as well as the new 
TRL CRS program) includes a side impact sled test as well as a 
usability assessment, neither of which TRL felt were addressed 
sufficiently in ECE R44. The rating scheme that was developed under 
these efforts will present individual products' safety in terms of an 
overall star rating, which is based on frontal and side sled test 
performance as well as a usability assessment. TRL hopes that the 
ratings will be useful to consumers seeking information on the 
comparative performance of child restraints as well as provide a new 
promotional tool for manufacturers and retailers. Again, because the 
NPACS protocol does not address CRS-to-vehicle compatibility as it 
relates to specific product pairs, the agency is not proposing to use 
this protocol.
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 10658]]

Appendix B: Pilot Study Evaluation Form
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.030


[[Page 10659]]



Appendix C: Observations From Vehicle-CRS Pilot Study

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Mitsubishi Eclipse                     Pontiac 5                     Chevrolet Impala                  Chrysler Sebring                    Dodge Charger                      Ford Focus
          CRS Model          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi Shuttle EX............  N(b)...........  N(f)...........  N(i)...........  Y..............  N(b)(i)........  N(c)...........  N(c)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y
Graco Snugride 32...........  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(i)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  N(c)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y
Safety 1st Designer 22......  N(b)...........  N(f)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(l)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(f)...........  N(l)...........  N(b)(c)........  N(c)...........  N(m)...........  Y
Graco ComfortSport..........  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y..............  Y..............  N(c)(f)........  N(c)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(t)...........  N(t)
Britax Boulevard CS.........  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y*.............  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  N(l)
Sunshine Kids Radian XT.....  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y*.............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  Y*.............  Y*
Safety 1st Summit...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(c)........  N(l)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y
Britax Frontier.............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(h)........  N(h)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)(f)........  N(b)...........  Y
Learning Curve B505.........  N(h)(s)........  n/a............  Y(c)...........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a
Magna Clek Olli.............  Y..............  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  N..............  N(b)...........  Y
Evenflo Amp.................  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)(c)........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(c)...........  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a
Safety 1st All in One.......  N(c)(r)........  N(l)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(l)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(b)(r)........  Y*.............  N(c)...........  N(c)(f)........  N(t)...........  N(l)(t)
Evenflo Symphony............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(c)(h)........  N(f)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(c)(r).....  N(f)...........  N(t)...........  N(t)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N--Proper fit could not be achieved in every allowable seating position and mode of CRS use for this combination.
Y--Proper fit was achieved for this vehicle-CRS combination in every allowable seating positioning and mode of use for this combination.
*--Front seat may need to be positioned in front half of seat track to accommodate CRS installed rear-facing.
(b)--Seat belt and child restraint are incompatible.
(c)--Seat or seat back contour creates instability and does not allow for a proper install.
(f)--Could not achieve 1'' or less of movement at the belt/LATCH path for this installation.
(h)--Height of roofline prevents the use of this CRS in its highest position.
(i)--Seat belt latch plate button interfered with belt lock-off hardware.
(l)--Lower anchors and child restraint are not compatible.
(m)--Instructions in the CRS or vehicle owner's manual prohibited this installation.
(r)--Proper recline could not be achieved without use of a towel or pool noodle.
(s)--Unwanted slack is created between the vehicle seat belt and the belt guide on this CRS.
(t)--Tether cannot be properly tightened.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Hyundai Elantra                    Mazda Protege                     Toyota Yaris                     Subaru Forester                    Nissan Murano                      Toyota RAV4
          CRS Model          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi Shuttle EX............  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(c)(r)(m)..  Y..............  N(i)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Graco Snugride 32...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(m)........  Y*.............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Safety 1st Designer 22......  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  Y..............  N(i)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Graco ComfortSport..........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)(l)........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Britax Boulevard CS.........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  Y*.............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Sunshine Kids Radian XT.....  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  N(f)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  N(l)
Safety 1st Summit...........  N(f)...........  N(f)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  N(b)(c)........  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Britax Frontier.............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(h)(c).....  N(h)(l)........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Learning Curve B505.........  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a
Magna Clek Olli.............  Y..............  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  N(b)(l)........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y
Evenflo Amp.................  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)(c)........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a
Safety 1st All in One.......  N(r)...........  Y..............  N(r)...........  N(r)...........  N(c)(r)........  N(c)(r)........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(b)...........  Y
Evenflo Symphony............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N--Proper fit could not be achieved in every allowable seating position and mode of CRS use for this combination.
Y--Proper fit was achieved for this vehicle-CRS combination in every allowable seating positioning and mode of use for this combination.
*--Front seat may need to be positioned in front half of seat track to accommodate CRS installed rear-facing.
(b)--Seat belt and child restraint are incompatible.
(c)--Seat or seat back contour creates instability and does not allow for a proper install.
(f)--Could not achieve 1'' or less of movement at the belt/LATCH path for this installation.
(h)--Height of roofline prevents the use of this CRS in its highest position.
(i)--Seat belt latch plate button interfered with belt lock-off hardware.
(l)--Lower anchors and child restraint are not compatible.
(m)--Instructions in the CRS or vehicle owner's manual prohibited this installation.
(r)--Proper recline could not be achieved without use of a towel or pool noodle.
(s)--Unwanted slack is created between the vehicle seat belt and the belt guide on this CRS.
(t)--Tether cannot be properly tightened.


[[Page 10660]]

Appendix D: Proposed Vehicle-CRS Fit Assessment Forms
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.031


[[Page 10661]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.032


[[Page 10662]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.033

Appendix E: Installation Methods for Assessing Vehicle-CRS Fit

                                  Overall Child Weight Limit is 40 lbs or Less
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Is vehicle top     CRS child weight    CRS child weight       Methods of
  Is vehicle lower anchor child     tether  anchor     limit  <= vehicle   limit  <= vehicle   installation that
weight limit in  vehicle manual?  child weight limit  lower anchor child   top tether anchor      NHTSA will
                                  in vehicle manual?     weight limit     child weight limit       evaluate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.............................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up to 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               belts w/Tether.
                                  No................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up to 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
No..............................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up to 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                  No................  N/A...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up to 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 10663]]


                                Overall Child Weight Limit Is Greater Than 40 lbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Is vehicle top     CRS child weight    CRS child weight       Methods of
  Is vehicle lower anchor child     tether  anchor     limit  <= vehicle   limit  <= vehicle   installation that
weight limit in  vehicle manual?  child weight limit  lower anchor child   top tether anchor      NHTSA will
                                  in vehicle manual?     weight limit     child weight limit       evaluate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.............................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                  ..................  ..................  No................  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To
                                                                                               Vehicle Tether
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over
                                                                                               Vehicle Tether
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts.
                                  ..................  No................  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To
                                                                                               Vehicle Lower
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over
                                                                                               Vehicle Tether
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                  ..................  ..................  No................  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To
                                                                                               Vehicle Lower
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over
                                                                                               Vehicle Lower
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit but
                                                                                               Under Vehicle
                                                                                               Tether Anchor
                                                                                               Child Weight
                                                                                               Limit:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over
                                                                                               Vehicle Lower
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts Only.
                                  No................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts.
                                  ..................  No................  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over 40
                                                                                               lbs and Under or
                                                                                               Equal to Vehicle
                                                                                               Lower Anchor
                                                                                               Child Weight
                                                                                               Limit:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over
                                                                                               Vehicle Lower
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts Only.
No..............................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.

[[Page 10664]]

 
                                  ..................  ..................  No................  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over 40
                                                                                               lbs and Under or
                                                                                               Equal to Vehicle
                                                                                               Tether Anchor
                                                                                               Child Weight
                                                                                               Limit:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over
                                                                                               Vehicle Tether
                                                                                               Anchor Child
                                                                                               Weight Limit:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts Only.
                                  No................  N/A...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Up To 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Lower
                                                                                               Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                               or
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                              Evaluations
                                                                                               Conducted for
                                                                                               Children Over 40
                                                                                               lbs:
                                                                                               Seat
                                                                                               Belts Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-4212 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C