[Federal Register: February 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10637-10664]
[DOCID:fr25fe11-94]

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>). 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

    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-

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.

[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

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

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.

                      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

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, S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    \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

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\

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

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

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

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

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