Frontal New Car Assessment Program, 29815-29823 [05-10049]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
maintenance actions to the existing
parking areas and access points in the
future, without the Proposed Action.
V. Potential Effects
Upon completion, the proposed
improvements associated with the
Proposed Action are anticipated to
eliminate existing and future parking
deficiencies through 2015. It will also
generate positive impacts for MetroNorth customers, Westchester County
residents, businesses, workers, and
visitors.
Impacts that may occur as a result of
the Proposed Action will be evaluated
in the EIS. Metro-North and WCDOT
have identified several environmental
areas of concern, including, but not
limited to: Traffic; historic and
archaeological resources; parkland;
wetlands; visual character; and safety
and security. Potential temporary effects
associated with the construction phase
include noise, vibration, impacts on
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and air
quality. The EIS will describe the
methodology used to assess impacts;
identify the affected environment; and
identify opportunities and measures for
mitigating adverse impacts. Principles
of environmental construction
management, resource protection and
mitigation measures, and the ‘‘MTA
Metro North Railroad Sustainable
Design/Design for the Environment
Generic Recommendations and
Guidelines’’, dated August 19, 2002 and
developed pursuant to New York State
Executive Order No. 111, Green and
Clean State Buildings and Vehicles, will
be incorporated into the Build
Alternatives.
VI. FTA Procedures
During the NEPA process, FTA will
comply with the requirements of
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. 303), the conformity
requirements of the Clean Air Act,
Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice and, to the
maximum extent practicable, all other
applicable federal environmental
statutes, regulations, and executive
orders, in accordance with FTA policy
and regulations.
A Draft EIS will be prepared and
made available for public and agency
review and comment. A public hearing
will be held on the Draft EIS. On the
basis of the Draft EIS and the public and
agency comments thereon, a preferred
alternative will be selected and will be
fully described and further developed in
the Final EIS.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Issued on: May 19, 2005.
Letitia Thompson,
Regional Administrator, Region II.
[FR Doc. 05–10360 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–04–18682]
Frontal New Car Assessment Program
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of final decision on the
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
pilot programs for child safety.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act required
that a safety rating for child restraints be
established to provide practicable,
readily understandable, and timely
information to consumers. In addition,
the TREAD Act directed the Secretary of
Transportation to consider placing child
restraints in the rear seat of vehicles
crash-tested under NCAP. In response to
this mandate, NHTSA established a
consumer information program for addon child restraints based on their ease
of use, and announced that it would
perform two pilot programs to gather
additional information about other
aspects of child passenger safety. One
pilot program would subject child
restraints to a 48 km/h (30 mph) sled
test. This program focused on the
protection provided by the child
restraint. The second pilot program
placed child restraints in the rear seat of
vehicles in frontal NCAP tests. This
program focused on the protection the
vehicle provided to properly restrained
children. Based on the data collected
from both pilot programs, the agency
has decided not to implement a
dynamic child restraint system (CRS)
rating based on sled tests, and to
continue collecting data from NCAP
frontal crash tests to resolve some
outstanding technical issues and to
gather additional data on the Hybrid III
6-year-old and 10-year-old child
dummies. In addition, the agency will
develop a better understanding of the
real world data and its relationship to
NCAP child results. The agency will
make a decision on the merits of a
vehicle child protection rating in
conjunction with any possible revisions
to the frontal testing program, which the
agency is currently evaluating.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29815
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all submissions
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
petition (or signing the petition, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000, (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues concerning the dynamic
sled pilot program, contact Mr. Sean
Doyle of the New Car Assessment
Program. Telephone: (202) 366–1740.
Facsimile: (202) 493–2739. Electronic
mail: Sean.Doyle@nhtsa.dot.gov. For
technical issues concerning the vehicle
pilot program, contact Mr. Brian Park of
the New Car Assessment Program.
Telephone: (202) 366–1740. Facsimile:
(202) 493–2739. Electronic mail:
Brian.Park@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal
issues, contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of the
Office of Chief Counsel. Telephone:
(202) 366–2992. Facsimile: (202) 366–
3820. Electronic mail:
Dee.Fujita@nhtsa.dot.gov. You may
send mail to these officials at: The
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590.
I. Introduction
II. CRS Dynamic Pilot Program
A. Sled Testing
B. Findings
C. NHTSA’s Decision on a CRS Dynamic
Rating Program
III. Vehicle Pilot Program
A. Vehicle Testing
B. Findings
C. NHTSA’s Decision on a Vehicle Rating
System for Child Protection
IV. Conclusions
Appendix A
I. Introduction
On November 1, 2000, Congress
passed the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L.
106–414, 114 Stat. 1800). Section 14(b)
of this act directed the Secretary of
Transportation to determine ‘‘whether
to include child restraints in each
vehicle crash tested under NCAP.’’
Additionally, section 14(g) directed
NHTSA to ‘‘establish a child restraint
safety rating consumer information
program to provide practicable, readily
understandable, and timely information
to consumers for use in making
informed decisions in the purchase of
child restraints.’’
NHTSA published a notice on
November 6, 2001, which discussed
existing programs throughout the world
that rate the dynamic performance of
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
29816
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
child restraints, and addressed
comments in response to the agency’s
child restraint system (CRS) safety
plan.1 The notice also discussed
possible methods of rating CRS,
including, dynamic performance in sled
tests and ease of use. The notice also
discussed using child dummies in the
rear seat of frontal NCAP crash tests to
rate vehicles on child protection.
On November 5, 2002, a Notice of
Final Decision was published in
response to comments received relating
to the proposed rating systems.2 In
response to the congressional mandate
outlined in the TREAD Act, a final
protocol for an ease of use rating for
child restraints was established and
immediately implemented. The agency
also announced its intent to conduct
two pilot programs. One would
investigate the feasibility of rating child
restraints on their ability to protect
children, based upon a dynamic sled
test. The other would investigate the
possibility of rating vehicles on their
ability to protect children in the rear
seat, based upon frontal NCAP tests
incorporating CRS.
The first pilot program was a 48 km/
h (30 mph) dynamic sled test pilot
program to assess the dynamic
performance of child restraints using the
test seat assembly, test dummies (Child
Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI),
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy and
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy), and
Injury Assessment Reference Values
(IARVs) of the then proposed upgrade to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint
Systems.’’ 3
The second pilot program placed CRS
restrained child dummies in the rear
seat of frontal NCAP vehicle crash tests.
It was hoped that the data attained from
this pilot program would allow the
agency to determine the relative
contributions of both the child restraint,
and the vehicle in which the child
restraint is installed, to child occupant
protection. Also, the agency wished to
use this pilot program to evaluate
whether one dummy size could be used
as a surrogate for other child dummy
sizes, and whether various child or
harness types of restraints affected
performance in a frontal crash test.
At the conclusion of the pilot
programs, NHTSA said it would
evaluate all the test results and make
that evaluation available to the public.
If the information attained through the
pilot programs allowed the agency to
1 65
FR 70687, Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7938
FR 67448, Docket No. NHTSA–2001–10053
3 June 24, 2003 Final Rule (68 FR 37620 Docket
No, NHTSA–03–15351)
2 67
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
resolve the remaining technical issues
discussed in the 2002 notice, and the
test data indicated that NHTSA could
develop meaningful rating programs, it
was intended that both a child restraint
rating, based on the sled testing, and a
vehicle rating, based on the child
occupant performance in frontal NCAP
tests, would be implemented in model
year 2005.4
The test results and technical analyses
of both the sled and vehicle pilot
programs are addressed in separate
reports and are located in the NHTSA
docket (Docket No. 2004–18682). This
notice will discuss the agency’s decision
as it pertains to each of these pilot
programs. The agency has determined
that it will not proceed with a child
restraint rating based on sled tests
conducted at 48 km/h (30 mph). The
agency has also determined that a
decision on a vehicle rating for child
occupant protection is not possible at
this time based on the current test data.
Therefore, NHTSA will continue testing
child restraints in frontal NCAP vehicle
tests to gather additional test data as
well as determine the usefulness to
consumers that such a program would
provide. If a vehicle rating program
based on rear seat child occupant
protection were to be implemented in
the future, it would occur
simultaneously with any revisions that
will be made to the frontal NCAP.5
Changes to the frontal NCAP are being
considered as a result of changes made
to FMVSS No. 208.6
II. CRS Dynamic Pilot Program
A. Sled Testing
The two main goals of the dynamic
CRS sled test pilot program were to (1)
statistically compare the dynamic
performance between different CRS
configurations, and (2) determine the
range of dynamic performance for CRS
models. The testing was conducted in
accordance with the recent upgrade in
the FMVSS No. 213 rulemaking. Sled
tests were performed at 48 km/h (30
mph) with the 1-year-old CRABI
dummy (restrained in infant and
convertible restraints), the Hybrid III 3year-old dummy (restrained in
convertible, combination, and booster
restraints), and the Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummy (restrained in combination and
4 By model year 2005, we mean October 2004 to
coincide with the commencement of the fiscal year
2005 New Car Assessment Program
5 69 FR 61071
6 Effective beginning with the 2008 model year,
FMVSS No. 208 will be upgraded to the current
NCAP test speed of 35 mph for a belted 50th
percentile HIII dummy. May 12, 2000 Final Rule (65
FR 30680).
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
booster restraints).7 The test matrix was
designed to perform paired t-tests8,
which controlled for all differences
within a test except the variable of
interest. The same model of child
restraint was tested in the two outboard
positions on the sled bench in two
different configurations. Given the large
number of dummy-CRS combinations, it
was important to test as many
combinations as possible, yet have a
sample size that would permit
meaningful statistical comparisons.
Each CRS was tested in more than one
configuration by either varying
orientation of the restraint (forwardfacing or rear-facing), attachment to the
sled (LATCH 9, belt with tether, or belt
only), CRS usage (with or without a
base), or test dummy.
The test matrix resulted in a total of
40 different CRS models being tested.
These 40 models represented a large
majority of the restraints available in the
market at the time of testing. Various
child restraint types, models, and
brands were tested in six different test
series. These series included:
(1) One child restraint on the sled
bench versus two child restraints.10
(2) Infant seats with and without their
optional base (same CRS model per
comparison).
(3) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies
versus 1-year-old CRABI dummies in
rear-facing child restraints (same CRS
model per comparison).11
(4) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies
versus 1-year-old CRABI dummies in
forward-facing child restraints (same
CRS model per comparison).
(5) Child restraints with a lap belt and
top tether versus LATCH.
(6) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies in
belt-positioning booster seats versus
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies in beltpositioning boosters.
The first goal was set to assist the
agency in determining whether child
restraints with multiple configurations
would have to be tested in each of these
configurations to get an accurate
representation of the child restraints’
7 Appendix A, Table A1, contains a description
of various types of child restraints.
8 For paired t-tests, the data is dependent, i.e.
there is a one-to-one correspondence between the
values in the two samples and it determines
whether the two values differ from each other in a
statistically significant way.
9 Lower Anchors and Tether for Children.
10 Current FMVSS No. 213 compliance test
procedure only permits testing of one CRS at a time
on the sled bench.
11 FMVSS No. 213 does not currently have a
standard test procedure for testing the Hybrid III
three-year-old dummy in rear-facing child
restraints. Therefore NCAP relied on an installation
procedure used by test facilities and other
organizations that have experience testing Hybrid
III three-year old dummies in rear-facing CRS.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
dynamic performance. Subjecting each
CRS to various testing configurations
permitted a comparison between the
dynamic performances of the same CRS
in different configurations and allowed
the agency to determine the feasibility
of developing a rating program that
would require testing of only one CRS
configuration per restraint model, rather
than potentially several configurations
for some models. Such a rating program
could then accurately reflect the child
restraint’s dynamic performance with
one test, rather than needing to develop
a more complicated rating scheme
reflecting different performance for the
various configurations.
To expand upon data acquired in
previous testing, the agency also
intended for the pilot program testing to
help determine the range of dynamic
performance between CRS models. This
data would assist the agency in
determining whether there are
significant differences between the
dynamic sled test performance of
different child restraint models, and
thus whether or not a rating program
based on sled tests would provide
meaningful information to consumers.
Further detail on the methodology
and experimental design of this pilot
program can be found in the technical
report, ‘‘Child Restraint Dynamic
Performance Evaluation in a 48km/h (30
mph) Sled Test,’’ located in docket
NHTSA–04–18682.
B. Findings
Analysis of the sled test results was
mainly based on two injury criteria:
Head Injury Criterion (HIC) and chest
acceleration 12. These two injury criteria
were chosen because HIC and chest
acceleration are the two measurements
that are most readily correlated to
probability of injury. In addition, the
agency felt that if a rating system were
eventually developed, using HIC and
chest acceleration would allow the
agency to follow the same approach that
is currently used for the adult dummies
in frontal NCAP.
Statistical findings for the six series of
tests are summarized in Table 1, and
indicated the following:
29817
I Similar performance was attained
in forward facing (FF) CRSs irrespective
of the dummy size.
I Securing the CRSs with LATCH or
lap belt plus tether produced similar
results for a given CRS.
I Higher HIC responses occurred
when infant seat CRSs were tested with
the removable base attached.
I For rear facing (RF) CRSs, higher
HIC occurred when tested with the
Hybrid III 3-year-old as compared to the
1-year-old CRABI dummy.
I For belt positioning booster (BPB)
seats, higher HIC occurred when tested
with the Hybrid III 3-year-old versus the
Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy.
These results indicated that multiple
tests would be necessary to establish a
rating for infant, rear facing, and belt
positioning booster CRSs, since testing
in one configuration and/or with one
particular dummy size would not assure
that the results would apply to another
configuration or dummy.
TABLE 1
CRS configuration
Statistical difference in HIC performance?
One CRS on sled vs. two CRS on sled ..................................................
Hybrid III 3-year-old vs. 1-year-old CRABI FF ........................................
LATCH vs. Lap Belt w/top tether ............................................................
Base vs. No base (infant seat) ...............................................................
NO .................................................
NO .................................................
NO .................................................
YES, Base removed had lower
HIC.
YES, 1-year-old CRABI RF had
lower HIC.
YES, Hybrid III 6-year-old in BPB
had lower HIC.
Hybrid III 3-year-old vs. 1-year-old CRABI RF .......................................
Hybrid III 3-year-old vs. Hybrid III 6-year-old in BPB .............................
Statistical difference in chest acceleration performance?
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
Furthermore, the testing performed
confirmed earlier studies conducted by
the agency showing relatively little
distinction in CRS performance based
upon HIC and chest acceleration when
tested on the sled in the same
configuration.13 As shown in Appendix
A, Figures A1–A3, tests using numerous
make/model CRSs with the CRABI,
Hybrid III 3-year-old, and Hybrid III 6year-old dummies in rear facing,
forward facing, and belt positioning
booster CRS resulted in tightly clustered
responses for both HIC and chest
acceleration. The responses were also
well within the established FMVSS No.
213 injury tolerance levels.
C. NHTSA’s Decision on a CRS Dynamic
Rating Program
Table A2 in Appendix A illustrates
how there are often several different
configurations for one specific child
restraint type. The sled test data from
this pilot program has shown that
similar dynamic performance results
cannot be assumed for different
configurations of the same CRS model.
As such, any CRS dynamic rating
program would have to test many child
restraints in multiple configurations,
possibly with multiple dummies, to
provide a rating for any one child
restraint. Not doing so could
consequently provide consumers with
incomplete and inaccurate information.
Moreover, if one restraint is tested in all
applicable configurations, without a
combined rating, the potential for
multiple ratings for any one child
restraint model could result in
confusion for consumers.
The pilot program test results showed
relatively small performance
differences, particularly for chest
acceleration, between the best and worst
performer when tested under the same
configuration. In effect, the agency
found that for any given configuration,
most makes and models produced
results that were within an interval of
30 percent of the FMVSS No. 213 injury
tolerance levels. This included the
convertible and combination restraints
as well as the infant restraints and beltpositioning booster seats. Given that all
child restraints of the same type, when
tested in the same configuration,
12 Head and knee excursions, along with other
injury measures were also collected and are
available in the technical report, ‘‘Child Restraint
Dynamic Performance Evaluation in a 48km/h (30
mph) Sled Test’’ located in docket NHTSA–04–
18682.
13 In the November 5, 2002 notice, the agency had
concerns that a rating program based on 30 mph
sled tests would not provide meaningful
information to consumers, as all child restraints
subjected to this test would have received either a
four- or five-star rating.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
29818
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
perform very well and produce results
that fall within a relatively tight
response cluster, the agency believes
that it is not feasible to develop a CRS
dynamic rating that would provide
meaningful consumer information over
such a small range of dynamic
performance, especially when multiple
configurations are involved.
An additional agency concern is the
frequent rotation of the CRS product
line and short shelf life. Unlike vehicle
models, which tend to have multiple
year lifecycles before redesign, CRS
model changes occur much more
frequently. The shelf life for a typical
CRS can be as short as six to eight
months, and performing a dynamic sled
test on each CRS model in its multiple
configurations would make it unlikely
that consumers would have relevant
information available to them in making
a purchasing decision. In consideration
of the above, NHTSA has decided not to
implement a dynamic CRS rating based
on 48 km/h (30 mph) sled tests. The
agency believes that when child
restraints are used correctly, they are
very effective in providing child
passenger safety. Accordingly, the
agency views the current ease-of-use
consumer information program, which
improves correct installation of child
restraints by telling consumers which
restraints are easier to use and by
motivating manufacturers to make their
child restraints easier to use, as
sufficient in providing consumers with
helpful and meaningful information
when purchasing a child restraint.
III. Vehicle Pilot Program
A. Vehicle Testing
The three main goals of the vehicle
pilot program were to investigate (1)
whether or not the response
performance for various dummy sizes
and restraint configurations would
indicate similar levels of occupant
protection, (2) how different restraints
affect performance, and (3) to separate
the vehicle performance from the child
seat performance. As such, the agency
designed a test matrix to gather
statistically comparable information as
follows: Comparison of forward-facing
vs. rear-facing child restraints,
comparison of forward-facing child
restraints vs. booster seats, comparison
of one five-point harness model vs.
another five-point harness model, and
comparison of five-point harness vs.
overhead shield restraints. The agency
collected data from one hundred and
eight frontal vehicle tests that used the
1-year-old CRABI dummy, the Hybrid III
3-year-old dummy, and the Hybrid III 6year-old.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
All convertible and forward-facing
child restraints were installed using the
LATCH system when used in the
forward facing mode. For rear-facing
child restraints, only the lower
anchorages of the LATCH system were
used to secure the child restraint. For
every vehicle, the seating position
behind the right front seat passenger
had the same child restraint model
(baseline CRS), which contained a
forward facing Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy. The CRS and child
dummy used in the seating position
behind the driver was varied in order to
satisfy the program goals, and to serve
as a comparison against the baseline
CRS.
Further detail on the methodology,
experimental design, and results of the
pilot program can be found in the
technical report, ‘‘Evaluation of Child
Occupant Protection in a 56 km/h (35
mph) Frontal Barrier Crash’’, located in
docket NHTSA–04–18682.
B. Findings
This section discusses the findings in
resolving the three main program goals.
As with the analysis done for CRS
Dynamic Pilot Program, HIC and chest
acceleration were used for the analysis.
The vehicle pilot program studied three
CRS/dummy configurations. The first
was the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy
positioned in a forward-facing
convertible CRS compared to the 1-yearold CRABI dummy positioned in a rearfacing convertible CRS. The results of
these paired tests showed no
statistically significant difference in HIC
values, but testing did show higher
chest acceleration for the 1-year-old
CRABI than the Hybrid III 3-year-old
tested in the same vehicle. In addition,
the testing also showed that some rearfacing restraints interacted with the
front seatback during the crash event.
However, due to the limited sample
size, and the inability to quantify the
interaction with video coverage and
instrumentation, the agency feels that
more research is needed to fully
understand the importance of this
interaction.
The second configuration analyzed as
part of this pilot program compared a
Hybrid III 3-year-old in a forward-facing
convertible CRS to a Hybrid III 6-yearold that utilized the vehicle seat belts
and a belt-positioning booster. Again, no
statistically significant difference was
found between the HIC values for each
of the paired tests. However, the chest
acceleration values for the Hybrid III 6year-old were significantly higher than
those of the Hybrid III 3-year-old.
Further testing and analyses are needed
to better understand these results, since
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
standard NCAP instrumentation and
camera coverage do not provide
sufficient information to fully assess
potential causes for this result.
The third comparison evaluated by
the agency examined two child
restraints that were identical, with the
exception of the harness type. One child
restraint had a five-point harness, while
the other had an overhead shield.
Statistical analysis showed that there
was no significant difference for HIC or
chest acceleration for the dummy in the
five-point harness compared to the
dummy in the overhead shield.
The agency also evaluated whether
the same pair of CRS models, tested in
multiple vehicles, would display a
similar spread in injury results between
the two different child restraints in
every vehicle tested. Eleven vehicles
were tested with the same two forward
facing child restraints, the Evenflo
Vanguard V and the Britax Roundabout.
Both restraints were chosen based on
cost, popularity, and availability at the
time of testing. The average cost of the
Vanguard V was about one-third the
cost of the Roundabout. All tests
utilized the Hybrid III 3-year-old
dummy and the child restraints were
secured using LATCH. The results for
these tests are shown in Appendix A,
Table A3. For these eleven tests, the
injury values were typically lower for
the Vanguard V than for the
Roundabout, suggesting that the cost of
a child restraint may have little to do
with the level of safety offered by a CRS.
In addition, paired t-testing showed that
the average difference between the two
child restraints is small based upon the
injury risk curves.14 The difference in
average HIC response was 58, or a
difference of less than 2 percent head
injury risk. The difference in average
chest acceleration response was 3 G, or
about 2 percent difference in chest
injury risk. Both t-tests did not achieve
statistical significance.
Because the Hybrid III 3-year-old
child dummy was positioned in the
same child restraint in every vehicle
crash, thus establishing a baseline, the
agency was able to compare the vehicle
crash pulse characteristics to the child
dummy injury readings. While the HIC
readings showed little to no correlation
with the crash pulse for the Hybrid III
3-year-old dummy, the chest
acceleration readings did. The chest
acceleration readings had a
14 Viano, DC., and Arepally, S., Assessing the
Safety Performance of Occupant Restraint
Systems,’’ Proceedings of the 34th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE Paper 902328, Warrendale, PA,
November 1990.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
29819
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
correlation 15 (R2 ≈ 0.7) with pulse
duration, with higher chest acceleration
associated with shorter pulse durations.
Chest acceleration showed a weaker
correlation (R2 ≈ 0.4) with peak
acceleration and static crush.
Determining the source of difference
in child seat performance was of
interest. We wanted to find out what
percent of the total variation in the HIC
and chest G values are due to the
vehicles. Analysis of variance indicated
that about 75% of the variation in chest
acceleration and about 60% of the
variation in HIC values could be
attributed to the vehicle make and
model. An additional finding was that
the vehicle type, such as passenger car,
sport utility vehicle, van, or truck, did
not statistically correlate with the child
dummy results, and that there was no
statistical correlation between the driver
or front passenger dummy readings and
the rear seat Hybrid III 3-year-old
dummy readings.
C. NHTSA’s Decision on a Vehicle
Rating System for Child Protection
The agency’s test data indicates that
for the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy,
chest acceleration has some correlation
to a vehicle’s crash performance and
that both the HIC and chest acceleration
readings are more influenced by the
vehicle than by the child restraint.
However, we have insufficient data for
the other dummy sizes to make a
determination. As such, the agency feels
that additional testing is necessary
before a final decision can be made.
The CRS in-vehicle testing pilot
program gathered important data on the
CRABI, Hybrid III 3-year-old, and the
Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummies.
However, the agency is concerned that
the results may have been affected by
the interaction of the child seat with the
front seat. Therefore, the agency would
like to collect additional data to better
understand the effect of this interaction
on performance. When comparing the
Hybrid III 3-year-old to the Hybrid III 6year-old, the agency found that the
dummies had statistically different
values for chest acceleration, but not
HIC. Further testing and analyses are
needed to better understand these
results.
Under Anton’s Law (Pub. L. 107–318,
116 Stat. 2772), Congress mandated that
the agency develop a test dummy
representing a 10-year-old dummy for
use in testing child restraints used in
passenger motor vehicles. The agency
has completed development and
evaluation of the dummy, and will soon
15 Linear Correlation; R2 = 1.0 is perfect linear
correlation, R2 = 0.0 has no linear correlation.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
propose rulemaking to incorporate it
into the Code of Federal Regulations. Invehicle testing with this dummy, along
with the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy,
will allow the agency to gather
additional data on booster seat
performance and determine if either of
these dummies should be used in any
potential vehicle rating.
The agency continues to believe that
child restraints are highly effective in
reducing the likelihood of death and/or
serious injuries to children in motor
vehicle crashes. The agency notes that
misuse and non-use of child restraints
are the predominant cause for fatalities
involving children, and that even in
these very severe frontal NCAP tests,
none of the forward-facing child
restraints had a structural failure.
Similarly, when examining the data, the
agency also notes that many of the
vehicles provided relatively good
performance. However, the agency is
concerned that some vehicles did show
dummy measurements in excess of
established child injury reference
values. The agency is working to better
understand the meaning of these
measurements as they relate to a highspeed frontal collision. Thus far, the
understanding of the injury mechanism
and injury risks to properly restrained
children in appropriate child restraints
for full frontal crashes is limited. The
agency is using comprehensive
collection and assembly of all available
data, and is working with other
interested parties, to better understand
the child injury measures for these
NCAP tests and the corresponding real
world injuries.
Lastly, recent amendments to FMVSS
No. 208 require vehicles manufactured
after September 1, 2007, to meet the
injury criteria of that standard at the
NCAP test speed for the belted 50th
percentile male dummy. Because
compliance tests will then be performed
at frontal NCAP test speeds, the agency
is considering possible changes to
NCAP. The agency has proposed several
alternative approaches to revise the
frontal NCAP, including incorporation
of rear seat child occupant
measurements into the rating system [69
FR 61071].
Given these reasons, the agency feels
that more information is needed in
order to decide whether to begin rating
vehicles for child occupant protection
using the CRS restrained rear seat in the
frontal NCAP tests. To resolve the
technical issues discussed in this notice,
the agency will continue to collect rear
seat child protection data from NCAP
frontal crash tests.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
IV. Conclusions
The agency has concluded that a
dynamic CRS rating program would not
provide meaningful information for
consumers, and has decided it will not
implement a dynamic CRS rating based
on sled tests. The agency believes that
the current ease of use consumer
information program is providing
consumers with helpful and meaningful
information when purchasing a child
restraint.
In terms of a vehicle rating for child
occupant protection, NHTSA has
concluded that more testing and
analysis is needed before a final
determination can be made on the
inclusion of child response information
in NCAP. To gather the necessary
information, NHTSA will continue to
collect CRS restrained rear seat child
occupant data using 1-year-old CRABI,
Hybrid III 3-year-old, Hybrid III 6-yearold, and Hybrid III 10-year-old dummies
in frontal NCAP crash tests. In addition,
NHTSA plans to further examine and
analyze the injury risks of children in
real world frontal crashes. NHTSA plans
to make a decision and publish a notice
discussing the merits of a consumer
information program that rates vehicles
on their ability to protect child
occupants in conjunction with any
possible revisions to frontal NCAP.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: May 6, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
Appendix A
TABLE A1
Child restraint
type
Description
Infant Seat .....
For infants from birth to
about 27 inches who
weigh up to 20 pounds.
When Used Rear Facing:
I All are recommended for
use by infants less than 1
year and up to about 20
pounds.
I Some are recommended
for rear facing use, for
heavier infants (30–35
pounds), and less than 1
year.
When Used Forward Facing:
I All are rated for children
up to 40 pounds.
I Used forward facing by
children who are between
20 and 40 pounds, and
over 1 year.
Convertible
Seat.
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
29820
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
TABLE A1—Continued
Child restraint
type
Combination
Seat.
TABLE A1—Continued
Child restraint
type
Description
TABLE A1—Continued
Child restraint
type
Description
When Used Forward Facing:
I All are rated for children
up to 40 pounds.
I Remove harness when
child reaches 40 pounds
and use the vehicle’s adult
lap and shoulder belt.
I Many can be used for
children up to 8 years old
in place of a booster seat.
When Used Rear Facing:
I All are recommended for
use by infants less than 1
year and up to about 20
pounds.
I Some can be used for
children from birth in place
of a infant seat.
I Some are recommended
for rear facing use, for
heavier infants (30–35
pounds), and less than 1
year.
Description
Booster Seat ..
I Recommended for use by
children approximately 20
to 40 pounds, when used
with harness.
I Remove harness when
child reaches 40 pounds
and use the vehicle’s adult
lap and shoulder belt for
children up to 8 years old.
TABLE A2
Child restraint type
Infant
Dummy ...............................................
Orientation .........................................
Attachment .........................................
Usage .................................................
CRABI ................................................
3YO ....................................................
6YO ....................................................
Rear Facing .......................................
Forward Facing ..................................
LATCH ...............................................
Belt w/ Tether ....................................
Belt Only ............................................
Base ...................................................
No Base .............................................
Convert.
Combo
2-in-1
Combo
3-in-1
BPB
X
..................
..................
X
..................
X
..................
X
X
X
X
X
..................
X
X
X
X
X
..................
..................
..................
X
X
..................
X
X
X
X
..................
..................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..................
..................
..................
X
X
..................
X
..................
..................
X
..................
..................
CRABI-Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction.
Infant Seat—Rear-facing seat for use by infants from birth until at least one year.
Forward-Facing Only Seat—CRS with internal harness used for toddlers age 1 to age 4.
Convertible Seat—Hybrid of infant seat and forward-facing only seat.
Belt Positioning Booster (BPB)—Forward-facing seat with no harness. Used to properly position vehicle 3-point belts on children age until at
least age 8.
2-in-1 Combo—Hybrid of forward-facing only seat and belt positioning booster.
3-in-1 Combo—Hybrid of infant seat, forward-facing only seat, and belt positioning booster.
TABLE A3
Evenflo Vanguard 5
Model
HIC 36
Acura TL ..........................................................................................................
Chevrolet Malibu ..............................................................................................
Dodge Intrepid .................................................................................................
Hyundai XG350 ...............................................................................................
Lincoln LS ........................................................................................................
Mitsubishi Endeavor ........................................................................................
Suzuki Aerio .....................................................................................................
Toyota Camry ..................................................................................................
Toyota Highlander ...........................................................................................
Toyota Sienna ..................................................................................................
Toyota Solara ..................................................................................................
Britax Roundabout
Chest acceleration
646
1027
694
970
641
694
793
765
1000
676
625
47
53
40
55
39
54
56
50
64
41
47
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
HIC 36
710
830
791
976
816
889
729
906
1107
705
716
Chest acceleration
48
52
51
64
50
47
68
52
57
40
51
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
29821
EN24MY05.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
VerDate jul<14>2003
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
En24MY05.001</GPH>
29822
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 24, 2005 / Notices
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Lois K. Holland,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–10312 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. 05–10049 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811–16–P
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
May 13, 2005.
The Department of Treasury has
submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to
OMB for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Dates: Written comments should be
received on or before June 23, 2005 to
be assured of consideration.
Departmental Offices/Office of Foreign
Assets Control
OMB Number: 1505–0202.
Form Numbers: TD F 90–22.60 and
TD F 90–22.60(SP).
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Request for a Specific License to
Visit and Immediate Family Member.
Description: Submissions will provide
the U.S. Government with information
to be used in enforcing the limitations
on Cuba travel-related transactions
incident to visiting immediate family
members by persons subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.
Respondents: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
35,000.
Estimated Burden Hours Per
Respondent: 10 minutes.
Frequency of Response: Other
(Triennially).
Estimated Total Reporting Burden:
5,833 hours.
Clearance Officer: Lois K. Holland,
(202) 622–1563, Departmental Offices,
Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,
(202) 395–7316, Office of Management
and Budget, Room 10235, New
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:36 May 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
May 17, 2005.
The Department of Treasury has
submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to
OMB for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Dates: Written comments should be
received on or before June 23, 2005 to
be assured of consideration.
Departmental Offices/Office of Foreign
Assets Control
OMB Number: 1505–0168.
Form Numbers: None.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Travel Service Provider and
Carrier Service Provider Submission.
Description: Submissions will provide
the U.S. Government with information
to be used in enforcing economic
sanctions programs administered by
OFAC under 31 CFR Chapter V.
Respondents: Business and other forprofit.
Estimated Number of Respondents/
Recordkeepers: 175.
Estimated Burden Hours Per
Respondent/Recordkeeper: 5 minutes.
Frequency of Response: Other
(Variable).
Estimated Total Reporting/
Recordkeeping Burden: 19,000 hours.
Clearance Officer: Lois K. Holland,
(202) 622–1563, Departmental Offices,
Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,
(202) 395–7316, Office of Management
and Budget, Room 10235, New
Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–10313 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811–16–P
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29823
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
May 17, 2005.
The Department of Treasury has
submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to
OMB for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before June 23, 2005 to
be assured of consideration.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB)
OMB Number: 1513–0006.
Form Number: TTB F 5520.3.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Application—Volatile FruitFlavor Concentrate Plants, TTB REC
5520/2.
Description: Persons who wish to
establish premises to manufacture
volatile fruit-flavor concentrates are
required to file an application so
requesting. TTB uses the application
information to identify persons
responsible for such manufacture, since
these products contain ethyl alcohol
and have potential for use as alcoholic
beverages with consequent loss of
revenue. The application constitutes
registry of a still, a statutory
requirement.
Respondents: Business of other forprofit.
Estimated Number of Recordkeeping:
10.
Estimated Burden Hours Per
Recordkeeper: 3 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Total Recordkeeping
Burden: 30 hours.
OMB Number: 1513–0022.
Form Number: TTB F 5520.2.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: TTB REC 5520/1 Annual Report
of Concentrate Manufacturers and Usual
and Customary Business Records—
Volatile Fruit-Flavor Concentrate.
Description: Manufacturers of volatile
fruit-flavor concentrate must provide
reports as necessary to insure the
protection of the revenue. The report
accounts for all concentrates
manufactured, removed, or treated so as
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29815-29823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10049]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-04-18682]
Frontal New Car Assessment Program
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of final decision on the New Car Assessment Program
(NCAP) pilot programs for child safety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act required that a safety rating for child
restraints be established to provide practicable, readily
understandable, and timely information to consumers. In addition, the
TREAD Act directed the Secretary of Transportation to consider placing
child restraints in the rear seat of vehicles crash-tested under NCAP.
In response to this mandate, NHTSA established a consumer information
program for add-on child restraints based on their ease of use, and
announced that it would perform two pilot programs to gather additional
information about other aspects of child passenger safety. One pilot
program would subject child restraints to a 48 km/h (30 mph) sled test.
This program focused on the protection provided by the child restraint.
The second pilot program placed child restraints in the rear seat of
vehicles in frontal NCAP tests. This program focused on the protection
the vehicle provided to properly restrained children. Based on the data
collected from both pilot programs, the agency has decided not to
implement a dynamic child restraint system (CRS) rating based on sled
tests, and to continue collecting data from NCAP frontal crash tests to
resolve some outstanding technical issues and to gather additional data
on the Hybrid III 6-year-old and 10-year-old child dummies. In
addition, the agency will develop a better understanding of the real
world data and its relationship to NCAP child results. The agency will
make a decision on the merits of a vehicle child protection rating in
conjunction with any possible revisions to the frontal testing program,
which the agency is currently evaluating.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
submissions received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the petition (or signing the petition, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues concerning the
dynamic sled pilot program, contact Mr. Sean Doyle of the New Car
Assessment Program. Telephone: (202) 366-1740. Facsimile: (202) 493-
2739. Electronic mail: Sean.Doyle@nhtsa.dot.gov. For technical issues
concerning the vehicle pilot program, contact Mr. Brian Park of the New
Car Assessment Program. Telephone: (202) 366-1740. Facsimile: (202)
493-2739. Electronic mail: Brian.Park@nhtsa.dot.gov. For legal issues,
contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of the Office of Chief Counsel. Telephone:
(202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. Electronic mail:
Dee.Fujita@nhtsa.dot.gov. You may send mail to these officials at: The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590.
I. Introduction
II. CRS Dynamic Pilot Program
A. Sled Testing
B. Findings
C. NHTSA's Decision on a CRS Dynamic Rating Program
III. Vehicle Pilot Program
A. Vehicle Testing
B. Findings
C. NHTSA's Decision on a Vehicle Rating System for Child
Protection
IV. Conclusions
Appendix A
I. Introduction
On November 1, 2000, Congress passed the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L.
106-414, 114 Stat. 1800). Section 14(b) of this act directed the
Secretary of Transportation to determine ``whether to include child
restraints in each vehicle crash tested under NCAP.'' Additionally,
section 14(g) directed NHTSA to ``establish a child restraint safety
rating consumer information program to provide practicable, readily
understandable, and timely information to consumers for use in making
informed decisions in the purchase of child restraints.''
NHTSA published a notice on November 6, 2001, which discussed
existing programs throughout the world that rate the dynamic
performance of
[[Page 29816]]
child restraints, and addressed comments in response to the agency's
child restraint system (CRS) safety plan.\1\ The notice also discussed
possible methods of rating CRS, including, dynamic performance in sled
tests and ease of use. The notice also discussed using child dummies in
the rear seat of frontal NCAP crash tests to rate vehicles on child
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 65 FR 70687, Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7938
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2002, a Notice of Final Decision was published in
response to comments received relating to the proposed rating
systems.\2\ In response to the congressional mandate outlined in the
TREAD Act, a final protocol for an ease of use rating for child
restraints was established and immediately implemented. The agency also
announced its intent to conduct two pilot programs. One would
investigate the feasibility of rating child restraints on their ability
to protect children, based upon a dynamic sled test. The other would
investigate the possibility of rating vehicles on their ability to
protect children in the rear seat, based upon frontal NCAP tests
incorporating CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 67 FR 67448, Docket No. NHTSA-2001-10053
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first pilot program was a 48 km/h (30 mph) dynamic sled test
pilot program to assess the dynamic performance of child restraints
using the test seat assembly, test dummies (Child Restraint Air Bag
Interaction (CRABI), Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy and Hybrid III 6-year-
old dummy), and Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) of the then
proposed upgrade to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, ``Child Restraint Systems.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ June 24, 2003 Final Rule (68 FR 37620 Docket No, NHTSA-03-
15351)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second pilot program placed CRS restrained child dummies in the
rear seat of frontal NCAP vehicle crash tests. It was hoped that the
data attained from this pilot program would allow the agency to
determine the relative contributions of both the child restraint, and
the vehicle in which the child restraint is installed, to child
occupant protection. Also, the agency wished to use this pilot program
to evaluate whether one dummy size could be used as a surrogate for
other child dummy sizes, and whether various child or harness types of
restraints affected performance in a frontal crash test.
At the conclusion of the pilot programs, NHTSA said it would
evaluate all the test results and make that evaluation available to the
public. If the information attained through the pilot programs allowed
the agency to resolve the remaining technical issues discussed in the
2002 notice, and the test data indicated that NHTSA could develop
meaningful rating programs, it was intended that both a child restraint
rating, based on the sled testing, and a vehicle rating, based on the
child occupant performance in frontal NCAP tests, would be implemented
in model year 2005.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ By model year 2005, we mean October 2004 to coincide with
the commencement of the fiscal year 2005 New Car Assessment Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test results and technical analyses of both the sled and
vehicle pilot programs are addressed in separate reports and are
located in the NHTSA docket (Docket No. 2004-18682). This notice will
discuss the agency's decision as it pertains to each of these pilot
programs. The agency has determined that it will not proceed with a
child restraint rating based on sled tests conducted at 48 km/h (30
mph). The agency has also determined that a decision on a vehicle
rating for child occupant protection is not possible at this time based
on the current test data. Therefore, NHTSA will continue testing child
restraints in frontal NCAP vehicle tests to gather additional test data
as well as determine the usefulness to consumers that such a program
would provide. If a vehicle rating program based on rear seat child
occupant protection were to be implemented in the future, it would
occur simultaneously with any revisions that will be made to the
frontal NCAP.\5\ Changes to the frontal NCAP are being considered as a
result of changes made to FMVSS No. 208.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 69 FR 61071
\6\ Effective beginning with the 2008 model year, FMVSS No. 208
will be upgraded to the current NCAP test speed of 35 mph for a
belted 50th percentile HIII dummy. May 12, 2000 Final Rule (65 FR
30680).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. CRS Dynamic Pilot Program
A. Sled Testing
The two main goals of the dynamic CRS sled test pilot program were
to (1) statistically compare the dynamic performance between different
CRS configurations, and (2) determine the range of dynamic performance
for CRS models. The testing was conducted in accordance with the recent
upgrade in the FMVSS No. 213 rulemaking. Sled tests were performed at
48 km/h (30 mph) with the 1-year-old CRABI dummy (restrained in infant
and convertible restraints), the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy
(restrained in convertible, combination, and booster restraints), and
the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (restrained in combination and booster
restraints).\7\ The test matrix was designed to perform paired t-
tests\8\, which controlled for all differences within a test except the
variable of interest. The same model of child restraint was tested in
the two outboard positions on the sled bench in two different
configurations. Given the large number of dummy-CRS combinations, it
was important to test as many combinations as possible, yet have a
sample size that would permit meaningful statistical comparisons. Each
CRS was tested in more than one configuration by either varying
orientation of the restraint (forward-facing or rear-facing),
attachment to the sled (LATCH \9\, belt with tether, or belt only), CRS
usage (with or without a base), or test dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Appendix A, Table A1, contains a description of various
types of child restraints.
\8\ For paired t-tests, the data is dependent, i.e. there is a
one-to-one correspondence between the values in the two samples and
it determines whether the two values differ from each other in a
statistically significant way.
\9\ Lower Anchors and Tether for Children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test matrix resulted in a total of 40 different CRS models
being tested. These 40 models represented a large majority of the
restraints available in the market at the time of testing. Various
child restraint types, models, and brands were tested in six different
test series. These series included:
(1) One child restraint on the sled bench versus two child
restraints.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Current FMVSS No. 213 compliance test procedure only
permits testing of one CRS at a time on the sled bench.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Infant seats with and without their optional base (same CRS
model per comparison).
(3) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies versus 1-year-old CRABI dummies
in rear-facing child restraints (same CRS model per comparison).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FMVSS No. 213 does not currently have a standard test
procedure for testing the Hybrid III three-year-old dummy in rear-
facing child restraints. Therefore NCAP relied on an installation
procedure used by test facilities and other organizations that have
experience testing Hybrid III three-year old dummies in rear-facing
CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies versus 1-year-old CRABI dummies
in forward-facing child restraints (same CRS model per comparison).
(5) Child restraints with a lap belt and top tether versus LATCH.
(6) Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies in belt-positioning booster seats
versus Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies in belt-positioning boosters.
The first goal was set to assist the agency in determining whether
child restraints with multiple configurations would have to be tested
in each of these configurations to get an accurate representation of
the child restraints'
[[Page 29817]]
dynamic performance. Subjecting each CRS to various testing
configurations permitted a comparison between the dynamic performances
of the same CRS in different configurations and allowed the agency to
determine the feasibility of developing a rating program that would
require testing of only one CRS configuration per restraint model,
rather than potentially several configurations for some models. Such a
rating program could then accurately reflect the child restraint's
dynamic performance with one test, rather than needing to develop a
more complicated rating scheme reflecting different performance for the
various configurations.
To expand upon data acquired in previous testing, the agency also
intended for the pilot program testing to help determine the range of
dynamic performance between CRS models. This data would assist the
agency in determining whether there are significant differences between
the dynamic sled test performance of different child restraint models,
and thus whether or not a rating program based on sled tests would
provide meaningful information to consumers.
Further detail on the methodology and experimental design of this
pilot program can be found in the technical report, ``Child Restraint
Dynamic Performance Evaluation in a 48km/h (30 mph) Sled Test,''
located in docket NHTSA-04-18682.
B. Findings
Analysis of the sled test results was mainly based on two injury
criteria: Head Injury Criterion (HIC) and chest acceleration \12\.
These two injury criteria were chosen because HIC and chest
acceleration are the two measurements that are most readily correlated
to probability of injury. In addition, the agency felt that if a rating
system were eventually developed, using HIC and chest acceleration
would allow the agency to follow the same approach that is currently
used for the adult dummies in frontal NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Head and knee excursions, along with other injury measures
were also collected and are available in the technical report,
``Child Restraint Dynamic Performance Evaluation in a 48km/h (30
mph) Sled Test'' located in docket NHTSA-04-18682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical findings for the six series of tests are summarized in
Table 1, and indicated the following:
[squf] Similar performance was attained in forward facing (FF) CRSs
irrespective of the dummy size.
[squf] Securing the CRSs with LATCH or lap belt plus tether
produced similar results for a given CRS.
[squf] Higher HIC responses occurred when infant seat CRSs were
tested with the removable base attached.
[squf] For rear facing (RF) CRSs, higher HIC occurred when tested
with the Hybrid III 3-year-old as compared to the 1-year-old CRABI
dummy.
[squf] For belt positioning booster (BPB) seats, higher HIC
occurred when tested with the Hybrid III 3-year-old versus the Hybrid
III 6-year-old dummy.
These results indicated that multiple tests would be necessary to
establish a rating for infant, rear facing, and belt positioning
booster CRSs, since testing in one configuration and/or with one
particular dummy size would not assure that the results would apply to
another configuration or dummy.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical
Statistical difference in
CRS configuration difference in HIC chest acceleration
performance? performance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One CRS on sled vs. two CRS on NO................ NO.
sled.
Hybrid III 3-year-old vs. 1-year- NO................ NO.
old CRABI FF.
LATCH vs. Lap Belt w/top tether. NO................ NO.
Base vs. No base (infant seat).. YES, Base removed NO.
had lower HIC.
Hybrid III 3-year-old vs. 1-year- YES, 1-year-old NO.
old CRABI RF. CRABI RF had
lower HIC.
Hybrid III 3-year-old vs. Hybrid YES, Hybrid III 6- NO.
III 6-year-old in BPB. year-old in BPB
had lower HIC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the testing performed confirmed earlier studies
conducted by the agency showing relatively little distinction in CRS
performance based upon HIC and chest acceleration when tested on the
sled in the same configuration.\13\ As shown in Appendix A, Figures A1-
A3, tests using numerous make/model CRSs with the CRABI, Hybrid III 3-
year-old, and Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies in rear facing, forward
facing, and belt positioning booster CRS resulted in tightly clustered
responses for both HIC and chest acceleration. The responses were also
well within the established FMVSS No. 213 injury tolerance levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In the November 5, 2002 notice, the agency had concerns
that a rating program based on 30 mph sled tests would not provide
meaningful information to consumers, as all child restraints
subjected to this test would have received either a four- or five-
star rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. NHTSA's Decision on a CRS Dynamic Rating Program
Table A2 in Appendix A illustrates how there are often several
different configurations for one specific child restraint type. The
sled test data from this pilot program has shown that similar dynamic
performance results cannot be assumed for different configurations of
the same CRS model. As such, any CRS dynamic rating program would have
to test many child restraints in multiple configurations, possibly with
multiple dummies, to provide a rating for any one child restraint. Not
doing so could consequently provide consumers with incomplete and
inaccurate information. Moreover, if one restraint is tested in all
applicable configurations, without a combined rating, the potential for
multiple ratings for any one child restraint model could result in
confusion for consumers.
The pilot program test results showed relatively small performance
differences, particularly for chest acceleration, between the best and
worst performer when tested under the same configuration. In effect,
the agency found that for any given configuration, most makes and
models produced results that were within an interval of 30 percent of
the FMVSS No. 213 injury tolerance levels. This included the
convertible and combination restraints as well as the infant restraints
and belt-positioning booster seats. Given that all child restraints of
the same type, when tested in the same configuration,
[[Page 29818]]
perform very well and produce results that fall within a relatively
tight response cluster, the agency believes that it is not feasible to
develop a CRS dynamic rating that would provide meaningful consumer
information over such a small range of dynamic performance, especially
when multiple configurations are involved.
An additional agency concern is the frequent rotation of the CRS
product line and short shelf life. Unlike vehicle models, which tend to
have multiple year lifecycles before redesign, CRS model changes occur
much more frequently. The shelf life for a typical CRS can be as short
as six to eight months, and performing a dynamic sled test on each CRS
model in its multiple configurations would make it unlikely that
consumers would have relevant information available to them in making a
purchasing decision. In consideration of the above, NHTSA has decided
not to implement a dynamic CRS rating based on 48 km/h (30 mph) sled
tests. The agency believes that when child restraints are used
correctly, they are very effective in providing child passenger safety.
Accordingly, the agency views the current ease-of-use consumer
information program, which improves correct installation of child
restraints by telling consumers which restraints are easier to use and
by motivating manufacturers to make their child restraints easier to
use, as sufficient in providing consumers with helpful and meaningful
information when purchasing a child restraint.
III. Vehicle Pilot Program
A. Vehicle Testing
The three main goals of the vehicle pilot program were to
investigate (1) whether or not the response performance for various
dummy sizes and restraint configurations would indicate similar levels
of occupant protection, (2) how different restraints affect
performance, and (3) to separate the vehicle performance from the child
seat performance. As such, the agency designed a test matrix to gather
statistically comparable information as follows: Comparison of forward-
facing vs. rear-facing child restraints, comparison of forward-facing
child restraints vs. booster seats, comparison of one five-point
harness model vs. another five-point harness model, and comparison of
five-point harness vs. overhead shield restraints. The agency collected
data from one hundred and eight frontal vehicle tests that used the 1-
year-old CRABI dummy, the Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy, and the Hybrid
III 6-year-old.
All convertible and forward-facing child restraints were installed
using the LATCH system when used in the forward facing mode. For rear-
facing child restraints, only the lower anchorages of the LATCH system
were used to secure the child restraint. For every vehicle, the seating
position behind the right front seat passenger had the same child
restraint model (baseline CRS), which contained a forward facing Hybrid
III 3-year-old child dummy. The CRS and child dummy used in the seating
position behind the driver was varied in order to satisfy the program
goals, and to serve as a comparison against the baseline CRS.
Further detail on the methodology, experimental design, and results
of the pilot program can be found in the technical report, ``Evaluation
of Child Occupant Protection in a 56 km/h (35 mph) Frontal Barrier
Crash'', located in docket NHTSA-04-18682.
B. Findings
This section discusses the findings in resolving the three main
program goals. As with the analysis done for CRS Dynamic Pilot Program,
HIC and chest acceleration were used for the analysis. The vehicle
pilot program studied three CRS/dummy configurations. The first was the
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy positioned in a forward-facing convertible
CRS compared to the 1-year-old CRABI dummy positioned in a rear-facing
convertible CRS. The results of these paired tests showed no
statistically significant difference in HIC values, but testing did
show higher chest acceleration for the 1-year-old CRABI than the Hybrid
III 3-year-old tested in the same vehicle. In addition, the testing
also showed that some rear-facing restraints interacted with the front
seatback during the crash event. However, due to the limited sample
size, and the inability to quantify the interaction with video coverage
and instrumentation, the agency feels that more research is needed to
fully understand the importance of this interaction.
The second configuration analyzed as part of this pilot program
compared a Hybrid III 3-year-old in a forward-facing convertible CRS to
a Hybrid III 6-year-old that utilized the vehicle seat belts and a
belt-positioning booster. Again, no statistically significant
difference was found between the HIC values for each of the paired
tests. However, the chest acceleration values for the Hybrid III 6-
year-old were significantly higher than those of the Hybrid III 3-year-
old. Further testing and analyses are needed to better understand these
results, since standard NCAP instrumentation and camera coverage do not
provide sufficient information to fully assess potential causes for
this result.
The third comparison evaluated by the agency examined two child
restraints that were identical, with the exception of the harness type.
One child restraint had a five-point harness, while the other had an
overhead shield. Statistical analysis showed that there was no
significant difference for HIC or chest acceleration for the dummy in
the five-point harness compared to the dummy in the overhead shield.
The agency also evaluated whether the same pair of CRS models,
tested in multiple vehicles, would display a similar spread in injury
results between the two different child restraints in every vehicle
tested. Eleven vehicles were tested with the same two forward facing
child restraints, the Evenflo Vanguard V and the Britax Roundabout.
Both restraints were chosen based on cost, popularity, and availability
at the time of testing. The average cost of the Vanguard V was about
one-third the cost of the Roundabout. All tests utilized the Hybrid III
3-year-old dummy and the child restraints were secured using LATCH. The
results for these tests are shown in Appendix A, Table A3. For these
eleven tests, the injury values were typically lower for the Vanguard V
than for the Roundabout, suggesting that the cost of a child restraint
may have little to do with the level of safety offered by a CRS. In
addition, paired t-testing showed that the average difference between
the two child restraints is small based upon the injury risk
curves.\14\ The difference in average HIC response was 58, or a
difference of less than 2 percent head injury risk. The difference in
average chest acceleration response was 3 G, or about 2 percent
difference in chest injury risk. Both t-tests did not achieve
statistical significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Viano, DC., and Arepally, S., Assessing the Safety
Performance of Occupant Restraint Systems,'' Proceedings of the 34th
Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper 902328, Warrendale, PA,
November 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy was positioned in the
same child restraint in every vehicle crash, thus establishing a
baseline, the agency was able to compare the vehicle crash pulse
characteristics to the child dummy injury readings. While the HIC
readings showed little to no correlation with the crash pulse for the
Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy, the chest acceleration readings did. The
chest acceleration readings had a
[[Page 29819]]
correlation \15\ (R\2\ [ap] 0.7) with pulse duration, with higher chest
acceleration associated with shorter pulse durations. Chest
acceleration showed a weaker correlation (R\2\ [ap] 0.4) with peak
acceleration and static crush.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Linear Correlation; R\2\ = 1.0 is perfect linear
correlation, R\2\ = 0.0 has no linear correlation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining the source of difference in child seat performance was
of interest. We wanted to find out what percent of the total variation
in the HIC and chest G values are due to the vehicles. Analysis of
variance indicated that about 75% of the variation in chest
acceleration and about 60% of the variation in HIC values could be
attributed to the vehicle make and model. An additional finding was
that the vehicle type, such as passenger car, sport utility vehicle,
van, or truck, did not statistically correlate with the child dummy
results, and that there was no statistical correlation between the
driver or front passenger dummy readings and the rear seat Hybrid III
3-year-old dummy readings.
C. NHTSA's Decision on a Vehicle Rating System for Child Protection
The agency's test data indicates that for the Hybrid III 3-year-old
dummy, chest acceleration has some correlation to a vehicle's crash
performance and that both the HIC and chest acceleration readings are
more influenced by the vehicle than by the child restraint. However, we
have insufficient data for the other dummy sizes to make a
determination. As such, the agency feels that additional testing is
necessary before a final decision can be made.
The CRS in-vehicle testing pilot program gathered important data on
the CRABI, Hybrid III 3-year-old, and the Hybrid III 6-year-old child
dummies. However, the agency is concerned that the results may have
been affected by the interaction of the child seat with the front seat.
Therefore, the agency would like to collect additional data to better
understand the effect of this interaction on performance. When
comparing the Hybrid III 3-year-old to the Hybrid III 6-year-old, the
agency found that the dummies had statistically different values for
chest acceleration, but not HIC. Further testing and analyses are
needed to better understand these results.
Under Anton's Law (Pub. L. 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772), Congress
mandated that the agency develop a test dummy representing a 10-year-
old dummy for use in testing child restraints used in passenger motor
vehicles. The agency has completed development and evaluation of the
dummy, and will soon propose rulemaking to incorporate it into the Code
of Federal Regulations. In-vehicle testing with this dummy, along with
the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, will allow the agency to gather
additional data on booster seat performance and determine if either of
these dummies should be used in any potential vehicle rating.
The agency continues to believe that child restraints are highly
effective in reducing the likelihood of death and/or serious injuries
to children in motor vehicle crashes. The agency notes that misuse and
non-use of child restraints are the predominant cause for fatalities
involving children, and that even in these very severe frontal NCAP
tests, none of the forward-facing child restraints had a structural
failure. Similarly, when examining the data, the agency also notes that
many of the vehicles provided relatively good performance. However, the
agency is concerned that some vehicles did show dummy measurements in
excess of established child injury reference values. The agency is
working to better understand the meaning of these measurements as they
relate to a high-speed frontal collision. Thus far, the understanding
of the injury mechanism and injury risks to properly restrained
children in appropriate child restraints for full frontal crashes is
limited. The agency is using comprehensive collection and assembly of
all available data, and is working with other interested parties, to
better understand the child injury measures for these NCAP tests and
the corresponding real world injuries.
Lastly, recent amendments to FMVSS No. 208 require vehicles
manufactured after September 1, 2007, to meet the injury criteria of
that standard at the NCAP test speed for the belted 50th percentile
male dummy. Because compliance tests will then be performed at frontal
NCAP test speeds, the agency is considering possible changes to NCAP.
The agency has proposed several alternative approaches to revise the
frontal NCAP, including incorporation of rear seat child occupant
measurements into the rating system [69 FR 61071].
Given these reasons, the agency feels that more information is
needed in order to decide whether to begin rating vehicles for child
occupant protection using the CRS restrained rear seat in the frontal
NCAP tests. To resolve the technical issues discussed in this notice,
the agency will continue to collect rear seat child protection data
from NCAP frontal crash tests.
IV. Conclusions
The agency has concluded that a dynamic CRS rating program would
not provide meaningful information for consumers, and has decided it
will not implement a dynamic CRS rating based on sled tests. The agency
believes that the current ease of use consumer information program is
providing consumers with helpful and meaningful information when
purchasing a child restraint.
In terms of a vehicle rating for child occupant protection, NHTSA
has concluded that more testing and analysis is needed before a final
determination can be made on the inclusion of child response
information in NCAP. To gather the necessary information, NHTSA will
continue to collect CRS restrained rear seat child occupant data using
1-year-old CRABI, Hybrid III 3-year-old, Hybrid III 6-year-old, and
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummies in frontal NCAP crash tests. In
addition, NHTSA plans to further examine and analyze the injury risks
of children in real world frontal crashes. NHTSA plans to make a
decision and publish a notice discussing the merits of a consumer
information program that rates vehicles on their ability to protect
child occupants in conjunction with any possible revisions to frontal
NCAP.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: May 6, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
Appendix A
Table A1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child restraint type Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infant Seat............................ For infants from birth to about
27 inches who weigh up to 20
pounds.
Convertible Seat....................... When Used Rear Facing:
[squarf] All are recommended
for use by infants less than 1
year and up to about 20
pounds.
[squarf] Some are recommended
for rear facing use, for
heavier infants (30-35
pounds), and less than 1 year.
When Used Forward Facing:
[squarf] All are rated for
children up to 40 pounds.
[squarf] Used forward facing by
children who are between 20
and 40 pounds, and over 1
year.
[[Page 29820]]
Combination Seat....................... When Used Rear Facing:
[squarf] All are recommended
for use by infants less than 1
year and up to about 20
pounds.
[squarf] Some can be used for
children from birth in place
of a infant seat.
[squarf] Some are recommended
for rear facing use, for
heavier infants (30-35
pounds), and less than 1 year.
When Used Forward Facing:
[squarf] All are rated for
children up to 40 pounds.
[squarf] Remove harness when
child reaches 40 pounds and
use the vehicle's adult lap
and shoulder belt.
[squarf] Many can be used for
children up to 8 years old in
place of a booster seat.
Booster Seat........................... [squarf] Recommended for use by
children approximately 20 to
40 pounds, when used with
harness.
[squarf] Remove harness when
child reaches 40 pounds and
use the vehicle's adult lap
and shoulder belt for children
up to 8 years old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child restraint type
----------------------------------------------------------------
Combo 2-in- Combo 3-in-
Infant Convert. 1 1 BPB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy........................ CRABI........... X X ........... X ...........
3YO............. ........... X X X X
6YO............. ........... ........... X X X
Orientation.................. Rear Facing..... X X ........... X ...........
Forward Facing.. ........... X X X X
Attachment................... LATCH........... X X X X ...........
Belt w/ Tether.. ........... X X X ...........
Belt Only....... X X X X X
Usage........................ Base............ X ........... ........... ........... ...........
No Base......... X ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRABI-Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction.
Infant Seat--Rear-facing seat for use by infants from birth until at least one year.
Forward-Facing Only Seat--CRS with internal harness used for toddlers age 1 to age 4.
Convertible Seat--Hybrid of infant seat and forward-facing only seat.
Belt Positioning Booster (BPB)--Forward-facing seat with no harness. Used to properly position vehicle 3-point
belts on children age until at least age 8.
2-in-1 Combo--Hybrid of forward-facing only seat and belt positioning booster.
3-in-1 Combo--Hybrid of infant seat, forward-facing only seat, and belt positioning booster.
Table A3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo Vanguard 5 Britax Roundabout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Model Chest Chest
HIC 36 acceleration HIC 36 acceleration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acura TL........................................ 646 47 710 48
Chevrolet Malibu................................ 1027 53 830 52
Dodge Intrepid.................................. 694 40 791 51
Hyundai XG350................................... 970 55 976 64
Lincoln LS...................................... 641 39 816 50
Mitsubishi Endeavor............................. 694 54 889 47
Suzuki Aerio.................................... 793 56 729 68
Toyota Camry.................................... 765 50 906 52
Toyota Highlander............................... 1000 64 1107 57
Toyota Sienna................................... 676 41 705 40
Toyota Solara................................... 625 47 716 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 29821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY05.000
[[Page 29822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MY05.001
[[Page 29823]]
[FR Doc. 05-10049 Filed 5-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
