[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10786-10850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5053]
[[Page 10785]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 571 and 596
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems; Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 10786]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 596
[Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AG50
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems;
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a new Federal motor vehicle safety
standard that requires motor vehicle manufacturers to provide motorists
with a new way of installing child restraints. In the future, vehicles
will be equipped with child restraint anchorage systems that are
standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts.
The new independent system will have two lower anchorages, and one
upper anchorage. Each lower anchorage will include a rigid round rod or
``bar'' unto which a hook, a jaw-like buckle or other connector can be
snapped. The bars will be located at the intersection of the vehicle
seat cushion and seat back. The upper anchorage will be a ring-like
object to which the upper tether of a child restraint system can be
attached. The new independent anchorage system will be required to be
installed at two rear seating positions. In addition, a tether
anchorage will be required at a third position. This final rule also
amends the child restraint standard to require child restraints to be
equipped with means for attaching to the new independent anchorage
system.
This final rule is being issued because the full effectiveness of
child restraint systems is not being realized. The reasons for this
include design features affecting the compatibility of child restraints
and both vehicle seats and vehicle seat belt systems. By requiring an
easy-to-use anchorage system that is independent of the vehicle seat
belts, this final rule makes possible more effective child restraint
installation and will thereby increase child restraint effectiveness
and child safety.
Issuance of this rule makes the United States the first country to
adopt requirements for a complete universal anchorage system. To the
extent consistent with safety, NHTSA has sought to harmonize its rule
with requirements being considered by standard bodies and regulatory
authorities in Europe and elsewhere. The agency has harmonized with
anticipated Economic Commission for Europe and Canadian regulations by
requiring that bars be used as the lower anchorages for installing
child restraints. The agency has also harmonized with Canadian and
Australian regulations by expressly requiring tether anchorages in
vehicles and indirectly requiring tethers on most child restraints.
For the convenience of the traveling public, DOT wants child
restraints complying with this final rule to be usable in both aircraft
and motor vehicles to the extent practicable. To that end, the agency
is developing a proposal to ensure that the new child restraints are
not designed in a way that might make them unsuitable for aircraft use.
NHTSA expects to issue the proposal next spring.
DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective September 1,
1999.
The incorporation by reference of the material listed in this
document is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
September 1, 1999.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by April
19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: George
Mouchahoir, PhD. (202-366-4919), Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
NHTSA.
For legal issues: Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel
(202-366-2992), NHTSA.
Both of the above persons can be reached at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary of this Final Rule
a. Final rule
b. Why NHTSA is issuing this rule: the underlying issue, and how
this rule addresses it
c. How and why this final rule differs from the agency's NPRM:
particularly, why NHTSA selected the ISO rigid bar anchorage system,
instead of the flexible latchplate anchorage system
d. Future proposal to promote the usability of the new child
restraints in both aircraft and motor vehicles
II. Safety Issue
a. Why is something being done to improve child restraint
safety? Aren't child restraints highly effective already?
b. Factors affecting child restraint effectiveness
III. Summary of the NPRM
a. What NHTSA proposed to address the issue; preference for
flexible latchplate anchorage system over the rigid bar anchorage
system
b. Proposed leadtime
c. NPRM's estimated benefits and costs of the rulemaking
d. Alternatives considered
IV. Summary of the Comments
a. Commenters supporting flexible latchplate anchorage system
b. Commenters supporting rigid bar anchorage system
V. Summary of Post-Comment Period Events and Docket Submissions
a. ISO working group refines and completes draft ISO standard on
rigid bar anchorage system
b. Child restraint manufacturers shift support to rigid bar
anchorage system
c. Industry conducts consumer focus group testing on which lower
anchorage system is preferred
d. Canada issues rule on tether anchorages
VI. Agency Decision Regarding Final Rule
a. Summary of the final rule
b. Summary of key differences between NPRM and final rule
VII. Issue-by-Issue Discussion of the Agency Decision on Content of
Final Rule
a. NHTSA determines the anchorage systems are essentially equal
on the merits
b. There is substantial consumer interest in both anchorage
systems
c. NHTSA determines only one lower anchorage system can be
selected
d. NHTSA selects the rigid bar anchorage system based on its
advantages over the flexible latchplate anchorage system
1. The first advantage is harmonization of standards
2. The second advantage is enhanced design flexibility which
provides a reasonably predictable prospect for design improvements
that will enhance either safety or public acceptability or both
3. The third advantage is possible safety benefits
e. NHTSA's final rule is not identical to the draft ISO standard
1. Bars may not be attached to the vehicle by webbing materials
2. The bars must be visible or the vehicle seat back marked to
assist consumers in locating them
3. A tether anchorage is not required by the draft ISO standard,
but is required by this final rule
f. The types of vehicles that are subject to the adopted
requirements
g. The number of anchorage systems that are required in each
vehicle
h. Lockability requirement will be retained until 2012
i. Strength requirements for lower rigid bars of child restraint
anchorage system and compliance test procedures
j. Requirements for child restraints
k. Performance and testing requirements for tether anchorages
l. Leadtime and phasing-in the requirements
[[Page 10787]]
1. Tether anchorage and tether strap
2. Lower anchorage bars and means for attaching child restraints
to those bars
3. Requirement to identify vehicles certified to the vehicle
requirements during the phase-in
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
c. Executive Order 12612
d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
e. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
f. National Environmental Policy Act
g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
h. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Executive Summary of This Final Rule
a. Final Rule
Child restraint systems are highly effective in reducing the
likelihood of death or serious injury in motor vehicle crashes. The
agency estimates that child restraints are potentially 71 percent
effective in reducing the likelihood of death.1 However, the
extent to which this level of effectiveness is achieved in actual use
depends upon a number of factors, including how well motorists are able
to adapt the vehicle seat belts for the installation of the child
restraints, and upon the compatibility between child restraints and
vehicle seats and seat belts. As a result of improper installation of
children in child restraints and child restraints in vehicles, the
actual average effectiveness for all child restraints in use in
preventing fatalities is 59 percent.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kahane, Charles J. (1986), An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness and Benefits of Safety Seats, U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT
HS 806 889, p. 305. The agency believes that this figure remains
valid.
\2\ Hertz, Ellen (1996), Research Note, ``Revised Estimates of
Child Restraint Effectiveness,'' U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule will improve the actual average effectiveness of
child restraint systems by improving the compatibility of child
restraints and vehicles and making them easier to install. This rule
requires that motor vehicles be equipped with a easy-to-use anchorage
system designed to be used exclusively for securing child restraints.
Each vehicle anchorage system will consist of an upper anchorage point
and two lower anchorage points. Each lower anchorage includes a 6
millimeter (mm) (0.24 inches (in.)) diameter straight rod, or ``bar,''
that is attached to the vehicle and is lateral and horizontal in
direction. The bars are located near the intersection of the seat
cushion and seat back in a position where they will not be felt by
seated occupants. The upper anchorage is a user-ready component for
attaching the top tether of a child restraint. This preamble refers to
this system as the ``rigid bar anchorage system,'' in reference to the
6 mm diameter bars, which are rigidly mounted to the vehicle.
Each vehicle must have at least two vehicle anchorage systems
rearward of the front seat. However, if a vehicle has a rear seat with
insufficient space to accommodate a rear facing infant seat, and is
equipped with, as original equipment (OE), an air bag cutoff switch
that deactivates the air bag for the front passenger position, one
anchorage system must be provided in that position, and another in a
rear seating position to accommodate a forward-facing child
restraint.3 If a vehicle has no rear seat, and is equipped
with an OE air bag cutoff switch that deactivates the air bag for the
front passenger position, one anchorage system must be provided in that
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The anchorage for a front seat tether could be attached any
one of three places: the ceiling; the floor pan right behind the
front seat; or to the back of the lower part of the seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each vehicle with at least three rear designated seating positions
must also have a third rear designated seating position equipped with a
user-ready tether anchorage. The third tether anchorage provides
parents an improved means of attaching the new child restraints at a
third rear seating position. In a typical family car with three rear
seating positions, the third tether anchorage would likely be at the
center rear seating position, which is a seating position that many
parents prefer placing their child. A full child restraint anchorage
system (consisting of the two rigid bars for the lower anchorages and a
top tether anchorage) is not required to be installed in the center
rear seating position because it may be difficult to fit the lower
anchorages of two child restraint anchorage systems, or two child
restraint systems, adjacent to each other in the rear seat of small
vehicles. Further, a lap belt at the center rear seating position,
together with a tether anchorage at that position, should perform
essentially as well as a full child restraint anchorage system. For
these reasons, and to minimize the cost of facilitating the use of the
new child restraints in the third position, the agency is requiring
two, and not three, child restraint anchorage systems.
Each child restraint will have components, such as hooks or
buckles, that are designed to clasp to the two lower rigid bars of a
vehicle's rigid bar anchorage system. Although the final rule does not
expressly require child restraints to have top tethers, it establishes
stricter limits on the distance that the head of a dummy seated in a
child restraint may move forward during a test simulating a frontal
vehicle crash (head excursion limit). Almost all child restraint models
will likely be equipped with a top tether in order to comply with the
new head excursion limit.
Each child restraint will also have to continue to be capable of
being attached to a vehicle by way of the vehicle's belt system. This
way, child restraints that have the new components can still be used on
older model vehicles that do not have a child restraint anchorage
system. Child restraints with the new components can also still be used
on aircraft, using the aircraft belt system to attach to the aircraft
seat. Older model child restraints that do not have the new components
attaching to the child restraint anchorage system can use vehicle
belts, as child restraints do now, to attach to new vehicle seats that
have a child restraint anchorage system.
The requirements adopted today reflect a worldwide effort to
improve the installation of child restraints in motor vehicles. This
final rule uses the technical specifications set forth in a draft
standard being developed by a working group to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), a worldwide voluntary
federation of ISO member bodies. NHTSA anticipates that the ISO, which
began work on an independent child restraint anchorage system in the
early 1990's, will be adopting the draft standard as a final standard
within the next year. Incorporation of the ISO standard into the
regulations of the European community is likely to follow. Canada and
Australia have also indicated their intent to undertake regulatory
action aimed at requiring the rigid bar anchorage system to improve
child restraint attachment for their countries' children.
NHTSA is issuing this final rule at this date, prior to the ISO's
completion of work on the draft standard, in order to provide increased
safety to this country's children as quickly as possible. Further, the
agency anticipates that the ISO and the working group will not make
significant changes to the draft ISO standard. To the extent that the
final ISO standard differs from this final rule, the agency will
evaluate those differences to determine if changes to this final rule
appear warranted. In the event NHTSA tentatively determines
[[Page 10788]]
that changes may be warranted, the agency will commence a rulemaking
proceeding and make a decision as to the issuance of an amendment based
on all available information developed in the course of that
proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.
b. Why NHTSA Is Issuing This Rule: The Underlying Issue, and How This
Rule Corrects It
This rule makes it easier to install child restraints by
eliminating the current dependence of motorists on vehicle seat belts
as the means of installing child restraints in vehicles. The primary
purpose of seat belts has always been to protect older children,
teenagers and adults from serious injury in vehicle crashes. A
secondary purpose of seat belts has been to install child restraints in
vehicles.
Attempting to design seat belts to achieve the first purpose
(restraining older children, teenagers and adults) has sometimes led to
design choices that may have made it more difficult for the belts to
achieve the second purpose (tightly securing a child restraint). One
design change is the replacement of simple lap belts with integrated
lap/shoulder belts in the back seats of vehicles. Another change is the
positioning of some seat belt anchorages several inches forward of the
seat back to better position the lap belt low on the pelvis of these
occupants. While these and other design changes have increased the
ability of vehicle belt systems to restrain occupants, they have made
it harder for motorists to use the belts on some vehicles for
installing child restraints.
By requiring motor vehicles to be equipped with standardized
anchorages designed exclusively for the purpose of securing child
restraints, this final rule will help vehicle and seat belt
manufacturers design belts to more effectively perform a dual role.
Manufacturers will be able to optimize seat belts to restrain older
children, teenagers and adults. Further, the final rule will provide
motorists with a means of securing child restraints that is easier and
more effective.
By requiring an independent child restraint anchorage system, the
final rule improves the compatibility of vehicle seats and child
restraints and the compatibility of seat belts and child restraints.
Installation of the new system will result in more child restraints
being correctly installed. The standardized vehicle anchorages and the
means of attachment on child restraints are intuitive and easy-to-use.
For example, they eliminate the need to route the vehicle belt through
or around the child restraint. By making child restraints easier to
install, correct use and effectiveness will be increased.
The requirement for top tether anchorages in vehicles will be
implemented before the requirement for the lower vehicle anchorages
since less leadtime is needed for the installation of the tether
anchorages. In those vehicles equipped with tether anchorages but not
lower anchorages, owners can install a child restraint complying with
this rule by attaching the tether and using the vehicle seat belts to
secure the lower part of the child restraint. Tether anchorages will be
required in the vast majority of passenger cars beginning September 1,
1999 4, and in all light trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles beginning September 1, 2000. To provide consumers
with the standardized lower anchorages in vehicles as quickly as
possible, this rule specifies a three year phase-in that begins
September 1, 2000. Beginning on that date, this rule requires vehicle
manufacturers to begin installing the new lower anchorages in new
passenger cars, in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,856 kilograms (kg) (8,500 lb)
or less, and in buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less
(including school buses in that GVWR category). Beginning on September
1, 2002, the new lower anchorages will be required in all new vehicles
in those categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The requirement will be phased in, with 80 percent of a
vehicle manufacturer's passenger car fleet required to have user-
ready tether anchorages by September 1, 1999, and the remaining 20
percent required to comply September 1 of the following year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement (the stricter head excursion limit) that will cause
top tethers to be installed on most child restraint systems will be
effective September 1, 1999. The requirement for child restraints to be
equipped with means for attaching to the lower anchorages will be
effective September 1, 2002. NHTSA believes that the latter requirement
should not be phased-in. Child restraint manufacturers have informed
the agency that a phase-in would not be successful because they do not
have the same type of control over the distribution of their products
that vehicle manufacturers have. According to the child restraint
manufacturers, if they were to produce both current child restraint
systems as well as child restraints with the new attachments,
distributors and retailers of their products would order mainly the
current child restraints to sell, which do not have the new
attachments, and not the new restraints because the current systems
would cost less than the new child restraint systems. Further, NHTSA
has decided against requiring all new child restraints to have the new
attachments earlier than the date on which vehicles will be equipped
with the lower anchorage system because new vehicles equipped with the
new attachment system will be a small proportion of the total vehicle
fleet during the phase-in period. Nevertheless, the agency anticipates
that some child restraint manufacturers will begin offering new designs
during the phase-in period, to meet a market demand for the products.
c. How and Why This Final Rule Differs From the Agency's NPRM:
Particularly, Why NHTSA Selected The ISO Rigid Bar Anchorage System,
Instead of the Flexible Latchplate Anchorage System
Today's final rule adopts the key aspect of the proposal. As in the
proposal, this rule requires vehicles to be equipped with an
independent anchorage system for attaching child restraints. An
independent system is strongly preferred by consumers over current seat
belts as the means of attaching child restraint systems. The
independent system uses three attachment points for securing a child
restraint to a vehicle seat (the two lower anchorages and the top
tether). The two lower points are at or near the intersection of the
vehicle seat cushion and seat back.
However, this final rule differs from the proposed system in
several important respects. The agency proposed to permit either of two
lower anchorage systems for vehicles: (1) the rigid bar anchorage
system adopted in this final rule; or (2) a buckle and flexible
latchplate system known as ``the uniform child restraint anchorage
system'' (``UCRA'' system). The buckle and latchplate of the second
system are similar to what is used for adult seat belts in vehicles.
The two lower anchorages consist of small latchplates, attached to
flexible webbing, near the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and
seat back. (In reference to the latchplates and to the flexibility of
the webbing, hereinafter this preamble refers to the UCRA system as the
``flexible latchplate system.'' This is to provide a more descriptive
term for the system than ``UCRA,'' for the reader's convenience.)
Buckles designed to attach to the latchplates are attached to the child
restraint by belt webbing.
Both systems would have been permitted under the NPRM because each
had its advantages. At the time of the proposal, information available
to NHTSA indicated that the installation of
[[Page 10789]]
the flexible latchplate system, instead of the rigid bar anchorage
system, in motor vehicles would result in less added cost and weight
for child restraints. This information was contained in a study
performed by a contractor for NHTSA. At the time of that study, the
then-existing prototypes of child restraints made to connect with the
rigid bar anchorage system were significantly different from current
prototypes. The then-existing prototypes typically had rigid prongs, or
runners, for attaching the child restraints to the rigid bars and a
substantial (and therefore heavy) supporting structure for the runners.
Based on that information from the study, the agency's cost analysis
indicated that the buckles of the flexible latchplate system (which
were attached to the child restraint by means of webbing) would add an
estimated $14 to the cost of a child restraint, while the rigid prongs
(attached by means of a heavy base) would add $60 to $100 to the cost
of a child restraint.
Although the two systems appeared to have similar safety benefits,
the lower anchorage of the flexible latchplate system appeared to
necessitate making less costly changes to child restraints than the
rigid bar anchorage system. Accordingly, the agency gave preference to
the flexible latchplate system in its proposal. It did this by
proposing to require that all child restraints have the buckles for
attaching to the flexible latchplate system. The rigid bar anchorage
system could have been provided only if the vehicle manufacturer also
provided an adapter that would connect at one end to the rigid bar and
at the other end to the buckles on the child restraint.
The agency has decided to require the installation of rigid bar
anchorage systems in motor vehicles instead of permitting either those
systems or flexible latchplate anchorage systems. Commenters urged
NHTSA to mandate a single system because of their opposition to an
adapter. They believed that an adapter would be lost or misused by
consumers, resulting in buckle-equipped child restraints unable to use
or improperly using a rigid bar anchorage system in the vehicle.
Further, the agency notes that mandating a single system standardizes
the anchorage system and thereby promotes consumer understanding of and
familiarity with the system.
In deciding which system to select, NHTSA noted that the rigid bar
anchorage system and the flexible latchplate system appear to be
roughly equally acceptable to the public. ISO-reported consumer clinics
that were conducted overseas and in Canada indicated comparable levels
of consumer acceptance for the two systems. In the most recent consumer
preference clinic, which was sponsored by U.S. and foreign vehicle
manufacturers, child restraint designs that were compatible with the
rigid bar anchorage system and with the flexible latchplate system were
strongly preferred over current child restraints designs that use
vehicle seat belts to attach to the vehicle. While consumers scored the
child restraint design that had the buckles highest, the three systems
that had the rigid bar anchorage-type of child restraints were, in
aggregate, the first choice of a large number of participants. This
does not mean that the consumers selected the rigid bar over the
flexible latchplate as their preferred vehicle system. However, it does
appear to indicate that the design flexibility of the rigid bar system
accommodated a variety of child restraint attachment options that, in
aggregate, resulted in more ``first place'' finishes than the flexible
latchplate design.
The agency also noted that when the flexible latchplate lower
anchorage system is compared to new prototypes of child restraints
designed to attach to rigid anchorages, the flexible latchplate system
loses much or all of the cost and weight advantage it was thought to
have at the time of the NPRM. After the NPRM was published, a number of
child restraint and vehicle manufacturers determined that child
restraints need not have rigid runners to attach to the rigid bar
anchorage system. They told the agency that hooks and other devices
were viable alternatives to rigid runners, and would be used by most
child restraint manufacturers if the rigid bar anchorage system were
adopted. They said that the hooks and other alternative connectors
could be attached to the child restraint with belt webbing, in the same
way the buckles for the flexible latchplates can be attached to the
child restraint. New analysis by the agency indicates that these
alternative rigid bar anchorage connectors would cost about the same or
less than the flexible latchplate buckles, and would not add
substantial bulk or weight to child restraints.
The rigid bar anchorage system currently has fairly wide support
among both vehicle and child restraint manufacturers. In June 1996, the
flexible latchplate anchorage system was supported by a wide variety of
vehicle manufacturers (virtually all domestic and foreign vehicle
manufacturers except for European manufacturers) and child restraint
manufacturers. Now, however, the only major vehicle manufacturer on
record with this agency as expressly favoring the flexible latchplate
anchorage system is General Motors. The shift to the rigid bar
anchorage system began shortly before publication of the NPRM. At that
time, Ford and Chrysler announced that they had changed their support
to the rigid bar anchorage system. Recently, Toyota expressed support
for the rigid bar anchorage system. In addition, most child restraint
manufacturers now support the rigid bar anchorage system.
Manufacturers cited the potential advantages of the rigid bar
anchorage system over the flexible latchplate system. They believe that
the rigid bar anchorage system will further international harmonization
of safety standards, while the flexible latchplate system will not.
They also believe that the rigid bar anchorage system allows for
greater design flexibility than the flexible latchplate system in the
design of child restraints and the connectors used to attach to the
anchorage system. They also believe that the rigid bar anchorage system
will enhance safety better than the flexible latchplate system in side
impacts, when rigid attachments are used on the child restraint to
connect to the rigid 6 mm bars in the vehicle seat bight (the
intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back). Many supporters of
the rigid bar anchorage system cite test data that show that the system
prevented head contact between a test dummy and the door structure in
side impact simulations, while the flexible systems did not. Some child
restraint manufacturers also believe that rigid attachments on both the
vehicle and the child restraint could better limit head excursions of
older children in frontal impacts.
NHTSA's selection of the rigid bar anchorage system harmonizes this
final rule with the actions of other regulatory authorities around the
world. Further, today's final rule adopts best practices in what has
been a global effort to develop an effective and easy-to-use child
restraint anchorage system. The rigid bar anchorage system is the one
most likely to be chosen as an internationally harmonized design under
the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Canada is also in support of the rigid bar anchorage system and may be
adopting the system in the future. This final rule also harmonizes with
Canadian and Australian regulations by expressly requiring tether
anchorages in vehicles and indirectly requiring tethers on most child
restraints.
Harmonizing this rule with the actions of other international
bodies is consistent with the goals of the Trade
[[Page 10790]]
Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (July 26, 1979, Public Law 96-39,
section 1(a), 93 Stat. 144.) (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.). That Act
requires, inter alia, Federal agencies to take into consideration
international standards and, if appropriate, base the agencies'
standards on international standards. The harmonization achieved by
this rule permits vehicle and child restraint manufacturers to have a
greater measure of planning certainty and predictability in designing
and selling their products, helps ensure that parents are provided an
anchorage system that meets their safety needs at the lowest possible
cost, and eliminates a potential barrier to international trade.
d. Future Proposal To Promote the Usability of the New Child Restraints
in Both Aircraft and Motor Vehicles
As NHTSA noted in its February 1997 NPRM, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is concerned that some new child restraints might
be manufactured with rigid ISO connectors or prongs that are neither
foldable nor retractable. FAA believes that if a child restraint with
non-folding, non-retracting rigid connectors were installed on an
aircraft seat, the connectors or prongs might damage the aircraft seat
cushions. They could also protrude into the leg space and egress path
of the passengers sitting in the row immediately behind the seat.
NHTSA believes that the near-term prospect of child restraint
manufacturers producing child restraints with non-folding,
nonretractable rigid connectors is fairly remote. Most child restraint
manufacturers are not using rigid connectors in their prototype
development work. The one manufacturer focusing on rigid connectors has
been using retractable rigid connectors or prongs in its product
development work.
Nevertheless, the issue of child restraint/aircraft compatibility
and consumer convenience is an important concern to NHTSA and FAA. The
two agencies want parents to be able to buy a single child restraint
that can be used in aircraft as well as in motor vehicles. To that end,
NHTSA is developing a proposal to ensure that the new child restraints
are not designed in a way that might make them unsuitable for aircraft
use. The proposal would require that if a child restraint has rigid
connectors, they must be foldable or retractable. As an alternative,
the agency would propose to require foldability or retractability as a
condition to certifying child restraints with rigid connectors for
aircraft use. NHTSA expects to issue the proposal this spring.
II. Safety Issue
a. Why Is Something Being Done To Improve Child Restraint Safety?
Aren't Child Restraints Highly Effective Already?
NHTSA estimates that, when installed correctly in a vehicle with
compatible seating and seat belt systems, child restraints are 71
percent effective in reducing the likelihood of death in motor vehicle
crashes. However, as a result of many child restraints either not being
used correctly or installed in vehicles with seats or seat belts that
are not fully compatible, the actual average effectiveness for the
entire population of child restraints in use is 59 percent.
5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hertz (1996), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Factors Affecting Child Restraint Effectiveness
The estimated 71 percent level of effectiveness is not realized in
many cases for several reasons. Currently, the standardized means of
attaching a child restraint is the vehicle belt system. Over the years,
vehicle seats and belt systems evolved to better restrain the upper and
lower torsos of older children, teenagers and adults. For example, seat
belt anchorages are sometimes positioned several inches forward of the
seat back to better position the lap belt low on the pelvis of these
occupants. The need to design vehicle seat belts to perform the dual
functions of restraining child restraint systems and of restraining the
torsos of older children, teenagers and adults limits the extent to
which vehicle belts can be designed to promote the effectiveness of
child restraints.
To elaborate further on the example given above regarding seat belt
anchorages, when vehicle belts attached to forward-mounted seat belt
anchorages are used with a child restraint, the belts cannot initially
provide any resistance to the forward movement of a child restraint in
a frontal crash. The child restraint slides forward in a crash until
the belt finally resists the forward movement of the child restraint.
NHTSA estimates that seat belt anchorages positioned five or more
inches forward of the seat back can increase the probability of severe
or greater injury by over 11 percent. This final rule makes child
restraints safer by reducing the likelihood of increased forward
movement of the child's head, and the likelihood of head impact, and
other traumas.
Other examples of the need to improve the compatibility of child
restraint systems and vehicles include:
(1) The seat cushions and seat backs are deeply contoured. This
improves the comfort of seated passenger and helps keep belted
passengers in place, but limits the ability of the seat to provide a
stable surface on which the child restraint can rest. This final rule
will make child restraints more stable, regardless of the contours of
the seat and seat back.
(2) The length of some seat belts and accompanying hardware
attachments are not suitable for use with child restraints, or with
special child restraints. In some seating positions, the distance
between the anchorages for the lap belt and buckle is not as wide as a
child restraint. In these cases, the seat belt may not tightly hold the
child restraint and it can easily move from side to side. By providing
a means for attaching child restraints that is independent of the
vehicle belts, this final rule will improve the lateral stability of
child restraints on the vehicle seat.
(3) Some vehicle seats are not wide enough or long enough to
accommodate child restraints properly. This final rule will accommodate
child restraints on these seats by providing an independent means of
stability.
Efforts to make vehicle belt systems more effective for teenagers
and adults have also resulted in the belt systems becoming more
complex. Lap/shoulder belts replaced lap belts. On older vehicles,
these belts need to be used with an accessory item, such as a locking
clip, for use with child restraints. A locking clip impedes movement of
the sliding latchplate on the lap/shoulder belt, which better restrains
a child restraint when the car is maneuvering or changing its velocity.
Since September 1, 1995, lap belts on new passenger vehicles are
lockable without a locking clip, but the belt must be maneuvered in a
special manner not always understood by consumers to engage the locking
feature.
Due in part to these complexities, the rate of incorrect usage of
child restraints is high. A four-state study done for NHTSA in 1996
examined people who use child restraint systems and found that
approximately 80 percent of the persons made at least one significant
error in using the systems. (``Patterns of Misuse of Child Safety
Seats,'' DOT HS 808 440, January 1996.) Observed misuse due to a
locking clip being incorrectly used or not used when necessary was 72
percent. Misuse due to the vehicle seat belt being incorrectly used
with a child seat (unbuckled, disconnected, misrouted, or untightened)
or used with a child too small to fit the belts was 17 percent.
[[Page 10791]]
People are not only not using child restraints as correctly as they
should, they are also frustrated with the effort needed to attach a
child restraint. Consumer clinics conducted in the U.S.6 and
Canada 7 found that virtually all the people surveyed in the
studies expressed high levels of dissatisfaction with conventional
means of attaching child restraints in vehicles. NHTSA's Consumer
Complaint Hotline received approximately 19,792 calls in 1996, 10,326
calls in 1997, and 19,935 in eight months in 1998, from people asking
about child seat compatibility with a particular vehicle or how to
correctly install a child seat, including requests for step-by-step
guidance in installing their child seats. When an article appears in
the media about compatibility problems between child restraints and
vehicle seats, those calls typically increase to over 500 a day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``An Evaluation of the Usability of Two Types of Universal
Child Restraint Seat Attachment Systems,'' General Motors
Corporation, 1996.
\7\ ``The ICBC Child Restraint User Trials,'' Rona Kinetics and
Associates Ltd. Report R96-04, prepared for the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia, December 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is concerned that because of frustrations associated with
vehicle to child restraint compatibility problems and the difficulties
with installing child restraints, consumer confidence in the safety of
child restraint systems could be eroding. A consumer clinic held in
April 1998 showed that the number one consumer safety concern was with
how tightly (secure) participants could get the child restraint
installed in the vehicle. NHTSA estimates that about 35 percent of the
rear seats of new passenger cars having seat belt anchorages 4 inches
or more away from the seat bight. The agency is concerned that
declining consumer confidence in child restraint systems could result
in less use of child restraints. Being able to tightly secure a child
restraint by way of an independent child restraint anchorage system
provides consumers with confidence in child restraint safety and has
the most potential for the highest, most effective, use of child
restraints.
III. Summary of the NPRM
a. What NHTSA Proposed To Address the Issue; Preference for Flexible
Latchplate Anchorage System Over the Rigid Bar Anchorage System
As a result of the usage and compatibility problems affecting the
installation of child restraint systems in vehicles, NHTSA proposed
that vehicles should be required to have a standardized system for
attaching child restraints that was independent of the vehicle belts.
On February 20, 1997, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to require
vehicles to have an independent ``child restraint anchorage system''
installed in two rear designated seating positions (in vehicles with
two or more rear seating position) and to require child restraints to
be equipped with a means of attaching to that system (62 FR
7858).8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The NPRM was preceded by intensive agency efforts to develop
and establish requirements for universal child restraint anchorage
systems. For example, the agency held a public workshop in October
1996 to--
Assess and discuss the relative merits, based on
safety, cost, public acceptance and other factors, of various
competing solutions to the problems associated with improving the
compatibility between child restraint systems and vehicle seating
positions and belt systems, increasing child restraint
effectiveness, and increasing child restraint usage rates;
Assess the prospects for the adoption in this country
and elsewhere of a single regulatory solution or at least compatible
regulatory solutions; and
Promote the convergence of those solutions. See NPRM,
62 FR at 7860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ``child restraint anchorage system'' was defined to consist of
two lower child restraint anchorages at the seat bight and a tether
anchorage for attaching a top tether strap of a child restraint system.
The lower anchorages could consist of either flexible latchplates or
rigid bar anchorages. However, NHTSA considered the flexible latchplate
anchorage system to have cost and weight advantages over the rigid bar
anchorage system, so the agency favored the flexible latchplate
anchorage system by (1) requiring all child restraints to have buckles
for the flexible latchplates and by (2) requiring each vehicle having
rigid bar anchorages to provide adapters that could accommodate child
restraints with the buckles for the flexible latchplates. At the time
of the NPRM, Canada was also undertaking rulemaking to require user-
ready tether anchorages and NHTSA sought to harmonize with those
prospective requirements. (Canada has since adopted its proposal for
the tether anchorages. See, section V.d., infra.) The agency's NPRM
also proposed reducing allowable head excursion limits in the Federal
safety standard regulating child restraint systems, Standard 213, which
would have had the effect of requiring most, if not all child
restraints to be equipped with an upper tether strap.
The NPRM proposed requirements to specify the construction of the
child restraint anchorage system, the location of the anchorages, and
the geometry of related components, such as the hardware that attaches
to a child seat. To prevent the vehicle anchorages from failing in a
crash, the anchorages, including structural components of the assembly,
would have had to withstand specified loads in a static pull test.
NHTSA proposed applying the requirement for the flexible latchplate
system to all passenger cars, and all trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. Each vehicle would have had to have at
least two flexible latchplate anchorage systems rearward of the front
seat. If a vehicle had no rear seat or had insufficient space to
accommodate a rear facing infant seat, and were equipped with an air
bag cutoff switch, as original equipment (OE), that deactivates the air
bag for the front passenger position, one anchorage system would have
had to be provided in that position, and another in a rear seating
position to accommodate a forward-facing child restraint. A built-in
child seat could have been substituted for one of the systems, but not
both, since rear-facing built-in systems are currently unavailable. If
there were no switch to turn off the front passenger air bag,
installation of an independent anchorage system would not have been
permitted in the front passenger seat.
b. Proposed Leadtime
NHTSA believed that the user-ready tether anchorage requirement for
vehicles could be made effective at a much earlier date than a
requirement for the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage
system. This was, in part, due to the fact that vehicles already had a
tether anchorage structure (e.g., a reinforced hole) at rear seating
positions to satisfy current Canadian requirements. The NPRM proposed
that the tether anchorage requirement become effective September 1,
1999 for passenger cars and a year later for LTVs. These effective
dates were the same ones proposed by Canada for its user-ready tether
anchorage requirement. The NPRM proposed that the effective date for
reducing Standard 213's head excursion requirement, thereby requiring a
tether for most child restraints, would be September 1, 1999.
The agency sought comments on whether a phase-in requirement for
the lower anchorages in vehicles would be appropriate, and how long a
period is needed for full implementation of the requirement. Comments
were also requested on the appropriateness of phasing-in the
requirement that child restraints be equipped with the devices that
connect to the vehicle child restraint anchorage system.
[[Page 10792]]
c. NPRM's Estimated Benefits and Costs of the Rulemaking
The NPRM discussed the agency's tentative conclusions about the
impacts (e.g., costs and benefits) of a final rule. The annual benefits
of the rule were estimated to be 24 to 32 lives saved, and 2,187 to
3,615 injuries prevented.
The NPRM estimated the average cost of a rule requiring the
flexible latchplate anchorage system would be approximately $160
million. The cost of the rule for vehicles was estimated to be about
$105 million. The cost of the rule related to the vehicle would range,
per vehicle, from $3.88 (one flexible latchplate anchorage system in
front seat only) to $7.76 (for one flexible latchplate anchorage system
in front seat and one in back seat or two flexible latchplate systems
in rear seats). NHTSA estimated that 15 million vehicles would be
affected annually: 9 million passenger cars and light trucks with
``adequate'' rear seats, 3 million vehicles with no rear seat, and 3
million vehicles that can only accommodate a forward-facing child seat
in the rear seat (not a rear-facing infant seat). The cost of the
buckle attachments on the child seat was estimated to be about $55
million (3.9 million child restraints (excluding belt-positioning
boosters) at $14 per seat.) The rigid bar anchorage system was thought
to increase the cost of a child restraint by possibly $100, assuming
that the child restraint had to have rigid attachments and a heavy
structure to support those attachments.
d. Alternatives Considered
The agency considered and tentatively rejected several alternatives
to an independent child restraint anchorage system. Efforts to improve
compatibility of child restraint systems and vehicle interior designs
first focused on the extent to which vehicle seats and seat belt
systems could better perform their dual functions of attaching child
restraints and protecting adults, teenagers and older children. The
agency evaluated what the industry had developed by way of design tools
that would help optimize protection for both the restrained child and
older population groups.
The Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) Recommended Practice SAE
J1819, ``Securing Child Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicle Rear
Seats,'' specifies guidelines that vehicle and child restraint
manufacturers can use for designing their products with compatibility
in mind. The recommended practice specifies a common reference tool, a
``Child Restraint System Accommodation Fixture,'' that both vehicle
manufacturers and child restraint manufacturers can use in assessing
compatibility. In addition, J1819 provides design values to vehicle
manufacturers for certain characteristics of rear seats and seat belts,
such as seat cushion shape and stiffness, and seat belt anchorage
location, belt length, buckle and latchplate size, and lockability.
Likewise, J1819 provides design guidelines to child seat manufacturers
for child seat features that correspond to the vehicle features.
NHTSA believed that requiring compliance with J1819 alone would not
sufficiently improve compatibility. Most, if not all vehicle and child
restraint manufacturers already use J1819 when designing their
products. Requiring compliance with J1819 also seemed excessively
design restrictive for both vehicle and child restraint manufacturers.
It would perpetuate the difficulties vehicle manufacturers have in
designing their belts for the dual function of protecting both the
child restraint occupant and the adult.
Another approach that NHTSA had taken to improve compatibility was
to improve the belt system to specifically require a feature to improve
the belt's usefulness with a child restraint system. For vehicles
produced beginning in September 1995, NHTSA added a ``lockability''
requirement to the occupant crash protection standard (Standard 208).
The rule requires the lap belt to be lockable to tightly secure child
safety seats, without the need to attach a locking clip or any other
device to the vehicle's seat belt webbing (58 FR 52922, October 13,
1993).
While the lockability requirement ostensibly makes a locking clip
obsolete, it still depends on the user knowing enough and making the
effort to manipulate the belt system.9 Also, the vehicle
belt must be routed correctly through the child restraint, which may
not be an easy task in all cases. Further, the lockability requirement
does not address the effects of forward-mounted seat belt anchorages on
child restraint effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A typical lockability device is the seat belt retractor that
can be converted from an emergency locking retractor (which locks
only in response to the rapid deceleration of the vehicle or rapid
spooling out of the seat belt webbing from the retractor) to an
automatic locking retractor by slowly pulling all of the webbing out
of the retractor and then letting the retractor wind the webbing
back up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It became apparent that what was needed was for the vehicle system
that secured the child restraint system to be independent of the
vehicle system that restrained and protected the adult, teenager and
older child. This idea originated in Europe where work on a child
restraint anchorage system quickly evolved, most notably in the
technical committee of the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO).
Cosco, a child restraint system manufacturer, suggested an
independent child restraint anchorage system that is midway between
using the vehicle's belts to attach a child restraint and the child
restraint anchorage system developed by groups such as the ISO and
adopted today by this final rule. Cosco's ``car seat only'' (CSO)
system, consists of an independent lap belt that is installed in
vehicle seats separately from the integrated lap/shoulder belts
provided for adult passengers. Similar to other child restraint
anchorage systems such as the ISO rigid bar system or GM's flexible
latchplate system, the CSO is independent of the vehicle's current belt
system. Yet, the CSO still uses the design concepts associated with a
belt system, e.g., using a belt to wrap through or around the child
restraint to latch it into the vehicle. To Cosco, that is the appeal of
its system. Cosco believes that the CSO system would not require any
changes in the design and manufacture of child restraints and thus
would add no increase to the price of child restraints.
To NHTSA, the fact that the CSO system is essentially no different
from the historic lap belt means the dissatisfaction many consumers
have about the difficulty of attaching a child restraint is likely to
be perpetuated with the CSO. NHTSA was concerned that the CSO system
might not make attaching a child seat significantly easier than it is
today. To NHTSA, a new means of attaching child restraints had to be
explored. Commenters responding to the NPRM agreed.
IV. Summary of the Comments
NHTSA received over 70 comments in response to the rulemaking
proposal.10 Because the international community is
considering adoption of a standard for a universal, independent child
restraint anchorage system, the agency received submissions from
foreign governments as well as domestic entities. All commenters agreed
with the need for a universal, independent child restraint anchorage
system and overwhelmingly concurred with the proposed requirements for
a top tether anchorage. However, over half opposed the agency's choice
of the flexible latchplate
[[Page 10793]]
system over the rigid bar anchorage system for the lower anchorage
points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Comments and other materials relating to the NPRM were
submitted to Docket No. 96-095, Notice 03, and Docket NHTSA-1998-
3390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Commenters Supporting Flexible Latchplate Anchorage System
The tentative choice of the flexible latchplate system was
supported by the Michigan Department of State Police, the Automotive
Occupant Restraints Council, General Motors (GM), Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety (Advocates), Indiana Mills and Manufacturing Inc.
(IMMI), the Drivers' Appeal for National Awareness (DANA), Gerry Baby
Products, and Evenflo Company.11 (Gerry and Evenflo have
since consolidated into one child restraint system manufacturing
company.) Several members of Congress sent a letter supporting the
flexible latchplate system.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ It should be noted that GM and IMMI were instrumental in
developing the flexible latchplate system. Century, Evenflo, Gerry
and Kolcraft are members of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association (JPMA), which joined with GM, IMMI and other
manufacturers in petitioning NHTSA to adopt the UCRA system.
\12\ The letter, dated May 21, 1997, from U.S. Representatives
Constance A. Morella, Steny H. Hoyer, George R. Nethercutt, Jr.,
Julia Carson and Martin Frost, stated that the flexible latchplate
system ``would require no structural changes to new vehicles, and *
* * is easy-to-use, employing buckle and latch-plate technology that
is familiar to most consumers.'' Comment number 43 in Docket 96-95-
N03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponents of the flexible latchplate anchorage system agreed with
the agency's tentative conclusions in the NPRM that the flexible
latchplate system appeared to be superior to the rigid bar anchorage
system because a child restraint equipped with buckles to attach to the
flexible latchplates would be less costly, bulky and heavy than a child
restraint equipped with rigid attachments. Some commenters supported
the flexible latchplate system because they believed that it needs a
shorter leadtime for implementation. IMMI, which helped develop the
flexible latchplate and buckle, believed that the appeal of its buckle
is that it provides a simple, intuitive, easy to use, and familiar
hardware concept which will give consumers ``a true sense of security
and familiarity that will translate into more [child] seats being used
as well as installed correctly.''
Some of the proponents of the flexible latchplate system objected
to the rigid bar anchorage system. Based on its belief that there is no
buckle that can latch to a round bar, and therefore that such a buckle
would have to be developed, IMMI suggested that the rigid bar anchorage
alternative would take three to five times as long to implement. IMMI
was also concerned that, under the specifications now under
consideration by the ISO working committee developing the draft
standard for the rigid bar system, the 6 mm bar would be permitted to
be located up to 70 mm (2.75 inches) rearward of the seat bight. The
commenter believed that locating the bars 70 mm from the seat bight
would seriously jeopardize their visibility and/or accessibility. A
letter ``strongly opposing the round bar interface'' was submitted by
Century Products, Gerry Baby Products, Evenflo Company, Kolcraft
Enterprises, and IMMI.13 The manufacturers stated that the
rigid bar anchorage system is unacceptable, arguing that the--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Century and Kolcraft have since informed NHTSA that with
certain qualifications, they have decided to favor the rigid bar
anchorage system over the UCRA. See section V.a, infra.
Rigidly mounted bars would not be visible or accessible inviting
misuse or non-use of car seats. No specifications or technology
exists for attachment connections to the round bar, and there is no
guarantee that these connectors could be available in three to five
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
years or be cost effective.
They were also ``concerned for the long term liability and risk
associated with use and performance on rigid systems designed to be
used with the 6 mm bar.''
b. Commenters Supporting Rigid Bar Anchorage System
The agency's proposal for making the flexible latchplate system the
preferred system was opposed by the United Nations Economic Commission
of Europe Group of Rapporteurs for Passive Safety (GRSP), the UK
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, the UK Department
of Transport, Transport Canada, the New South Wales Roads and Traffic
Authority (Australia), Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation, BMW of
North America, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Volvo Cars of North
America, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Kathleen Weber
of the University of Michigan Child Passenger Protection Research
Program (UMCPP), Volkswagen of America, Fisher-Price, Britax Romer, the
Millenium Development Corporation, Transport Research Laboratory Ltd.
(TRL), Safe Ride News, SafetyBeltSafe, and the University of Kansas
Medical Center. The commenters disagreed with the agency's tentative
conclusions in the NPRM that the rigid bar anchorage system will be
more costly and will add more weight and bulk to child restraints than
the flexible latchplate system, and will likely need a longer leadtime
to implement. They believed the rigid bar anchorage system and the
flexible latchplate system will have similar cost, weight and leadtime
impacts when the components that attach to the rigid bars are attached
to a child restraint by webbing (some call this type of attachment a
``non-rigid attachment,'' versus a rigid attachment). The commenters
further believed that the rigid bar anchorage system is superior
because it allows for more design flexibility in what child restraint
manufacturers can use to connect their child restraints to the rigid
bars; has greater potential safety benefits (for child restraints
equipped with rigid attachments) by reducing head excursion in side
impacts and by eliminating the need for the parent to tighten belts;
and enhances international harmonization of safety standards.
Several commenters stated that the agency's preference for the
flexible latchplate system was based on faulty premises, such as the
suggestion that hardware interfacing with the rigid bars will not be
available in the near future (commenters identified tether hooks as an
available, low-cost hardware); and that consumers are more familiar
with buckles and latchplates than with an rigid bar anchorage
connector. BMW stated that because both the flexible latchplate and
rigid bar anchorage systems permit the use of non-rigid attachments on
child restraint systems, BMW said there is no cost penalty associated
with the latter. The commenter stated that buckles for both the
latchplate and the rigid bar interfaces will have virtually the same
cost in production quantities. Also, BMW believed that the rigid bar
anchorage system could be implemented virtually as quickly as the
flexible latchplate design, and within the same leadtime. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) believed that buckles designed to
attach to the rigid bars may cost as little as $1.10 and can be
designed and produced in less than one year. As for vehicle costs, VW
believed that the rigid bar anchorage system would be less expensive
for vehicle manufacturers than the flexible latchplate system. (VW
cited NHTSA's October 17, 1996 cost analysis which estimated vehicle
costs for the flexible latchplate system to be $11.62, and for the
rigid bar system, $7.55.)
Several commenters believed an area where the rigid bar anchorage
system is superior to the flexible latchplate system is with regard to
the design flexibility of the systems. Kathleen Weber stated that ``The
[UCRA] flat plate, which can only be manifested in a soft-supported,
protruding configuration, is a short term expedient that offers little
opportunity for future
[[Page 10794]]
design improvement.'' Similarly, BMW believed that the flexible
latchplate system--
effectively freezes the current CRS technology * * *. [T]he U.S.
public will be forced to endure a system that does not have the
flexibility to provide both low cost child restraint systems (with
soft attachments) and advanced child restraints with enhanced side
impact protection and self-tensioning devices.
Many commenters, including Ford, Volvo, IIHS, the Roads and Traffic
Authority (RTA) of New South Wales (Australia) and others, believed
that the rigid bar anchorage system is superior to the flexible
latchplate system with respect to safety. Ford Motor Company believed
that the rigid bar anchorage system would increase child restraint
safety over the flexible latchplate system, particularly in side impact
crashes, at nearly equivalent cost for child restraint and vehicle
manufacturers. RTA stated that, while there is very little difference
in frontal crash protection provided by child restraints attached by a
flexible latchplate system and by the rigid bar anchorage system,
``[t]he real differences show up when you conduct side impact tests.
The rigid CANFIX/CAUSFIX 14 system appears to offer
considerable improved performance over the UCRA system and the current
Australian attachment system [lap belt and tether].'' The Department of
Transport in the United Kingdom stated that ``[w]e fully support the
adoption of rigid [6 mm diameter bar] anchorages believing that they
will simplify the fitting of CRS, significantly reduce the misuse of
CRS, and offer improved dynamic safety performance.'' The commenter
expressed concern that the flexible latchplate and the rigid bar are
not compatible with respect to their interfaces and that the flexible
latchplate system ``does not offer the possibility of a transition to
the rigid bar anchorage and the performance advantages it [the rigid
bar system] offers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CANFIX and CAUSFIX are the terms that Canada and Australia,
respectively, use in referring to a rigid bar anchorage system with
a tether anchorage. It is the system NHTSA is adopting today in this
final rule. (Footnote added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters also believed that the rigid bar anchorage
system would enhance child restraint safety in areas other than side
impacts, as well. Safe Ride News stated that a rigid bar anchorage
system using rigid attachments on the child restraint would minimize
misuse by permitting a simple, one-click installation that virtually
eliminates adjustment problems. Similarly, IIHS believed that the rigid
system (for both vehicle and child restraint system) has the advantage
of not requiring parents to tighten any belts. ``Failure to tighten
belts sufficiently is a common mistake parents make when using the
current child restraint systems * * *.''
Some commenters expressed concerns about potential safety problems
with the flexible latchplate system. In commenting in support of the
rigid bar anchorage system, Transport Research Laboratory Ltd. (TRL)
stated that ``A rigid attachment system [on both the vehicle and the
child restraint] offers significant advantages over the soft systems in
terms of ease of use and reduction in misuse. A soft attachment system,
such as that proposed, while giving good performance when well
tightened, will not give good performance when used as user trials
suggest they will be used.'' (The commenter did not elaborate on this
issue.) Volvo expressed a concern that ``the compressive forces and
bending moments resulting from both handling of the CRS and a crash
situation may give rise to excessive stresses and strains in the
[flexible latchplate]. This is less likely with the round ISOFIX
15 attachments.'' (The commenter did not elaborate on this
issue.) Volvo also stated that ``[i]n a test Volvo has performed using
the UCRA attachment there have been incidents of unintentional
unlatching of the latchplate due to the release button on the
latchplate being too close to the adjust seat belt buckle.'' The
commenter also stated that the UCRA latchplates may not be accessible
for foldable seats after folding and unfolding the seat backs and seat
cushions. IIHS also stated that ``using similar technology [to
conventional seat belt buckles, as with the UCRA system] is not
necessarily advantageous. In user trials, some consumers attempted to
use the conventional seat belt latches to attach child seats rather
than the designated child restraint latches in vehicles * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ISOFIX was the name originally used by the ISO working
group to describe its rigid bar anchorage system. The ISOFIX design
has evolved through the years from a 4-point rigid anchorage concept
to a 2-point design. The commenter presumably is referring to the
current 2-point anchorage system. For a discussion of the design
evolution of ISOFIX, see NHTSA's February 1997 Preliminary Economic
Assessment (which is entry 1 in Docket No. 96-95-N3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost all of the commenters supporting the rigid bar anchorage
system argued that adopting that system would further international
harmonization of safety standards while adopting the flexible
latchplate anchorage system would not. The GRSP of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe stated that all of the governmental
representatives expressing a view on the NPRM supported a move to two
point rigid lower attachments. The GRSP stated that ``* * * NHTSA
should not encourage a unique national approach in its final
proposals.'' Ms. Kathleen Weber, chairperson of the U.S. delegation to
the ISO Working Group developing the draft ISO standard, stated:
It is clear that the European vehicle industry will move quickly
to recessed rigid bars for its [lower vehicle anchorages for child
restraints], U.S. manufacturers with world platforms will do the
same, and such anchors will probably be required in non-US markets
within a few years. By requiring the flat plate anchor in the U.S.
market, NHTSA will penalize consumers with an extra cost burden and
will isolate its child restraint market from the rest of the world.
Similarly, Transport Canada believed that the preferred system
worldwide is the rigid bar anchorage system, and thus expressed a
concern that the proposal's preference for the flexible latchplate
system does not provide for worldwide harmonization.
V. Summary of Post-Comment Period Events and Docket Submissions
a. ISO Working Group Refines and Completes Draft ISO Standard on Rigid
Bar Anchorage System
Since the NPRM, ISO Working Group 1 (WG 1) finalized its working
documents on the location of the rigid bar anchorages and the test
procedure for evaluating them. In the June 1998 meeting in Windsor,
Canada, the draft of the Canadian rule concerning requirements for top
tether anchorages (see section d, below) was incorporated into WG 1
activities to serve as the basis for the preparation of an ISO document
(ISO/WD13216-2) to be part of the ISO standard. The draft ISO standard
will be circulated to the ISO member bodies for voting. To be adopted
as an ISO standard, it has to be approved by at least 75 percent of the
member bodies casting a vote. NHTSA understands that the full committee
will vote on the draft international standard in early 1999.
B. Child Restraint Manufacturers Shift Support to Rigid Bar Anchorage
System
In June 1998, the agency received letters from child restraint
manufacturers Kolcraft, Cosco and Century expressing qualified support
for the rigid bar anchorage system. These manufacturers had originally
responded to the NPRM strongly opposed to that system but changed their
minds apparently after realizing that the rigid
[[Page 10795]]
bracket connector would not be required for the child restraint system.
These manufacturers stated that they now prefer the rigid bar
anchorage system over the flexible latchplate system,16
provided that the access and location of the anchorages allows design
flexibility for either a frame mounted (bracket-based) or a flexible
(strap) mounted connector on the child restraint. Factors cited for the
change in preference were performance, future child restraint system
design flexibility and international harmonization. Century said,
however, that the bars have to be accessible and visible. Cosco
believed that the cost effectiveness of the rigid bar anchorage system
and flexible latchplate system would be approximately equal, and that
``any differences in the using public concerning ease of use and/or
desirability of one with respect to the other would soon disappear if
such a real difference exists at all today.'' Cosco stated that the
rigid bar anchorage system
\16\ Cosco continues to favor the CSO system above all,
believing it to be the most cost-effective and quickest to
implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
would help to eliminate certain types of force vectors which may
occur within the system of flat latchplates that could be
detrimental. It also clearly distinguishes the car seat attachment
system from any other hardware that may be near by.
c. Industry Conducts Consumer Focus Group Testing on Which Lower
Anchorage System Is Preferred
In April 1998, the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
(AIAM) asked MORPACE International, Inc., to conduct a consumer clinic
to determine which of several methods of attaching child restraints
consumers in the U.S. find most acceptable. Century 1500 STE Prestige
convertible restraints were used as the representative child restraint.
The baseline method of attaching the Century seat was the vehicle belt
system. This was compared against a flexible latchplate system (with
the buckles attached to the child restraint by straps) and a rigid bar
anchorage system (with hooks and other connectors attached to the child
restraint by straps or by a rigid bracket attachment), and variations
of these attachments. A Volkswagen Passat sedan was fitted with a
flexible latchplate system and with the rigid bar anchorage system.
The clinic participants were 254 people who were the principal
drivers of their vehicle and who care for children 4 years of age or
less. Each participant was asked to install the child restraints and
then asked about his or her interest in the restraint. Later, the
participants were informed of the prices for the restraints and were
asked again about their interest in each restraint. The prices MORPACE
gave for the baseline child restraint was $63, the child restraint
equipped with buckles for the flexible latchplate system was $78, the
child restraint with the rigid bracket attachment for the rigid bar
system was $128, the rigid bar anchorage strap-based restraint with a
snap hook was $73, and the rigid bar anchorage strap-based system with
a buckle-type connector to a 6 mm bar was $80.
The following is the percentage of the participants who were very/
somewhat interested in the restraints before and after they were
informed of the prices. UCRA (78/77 percent); rigid bar anchorage
restraint with a buckle attached to it by webbing (67/57 percent);
rigid bar anchorage restraint with rigid bracket-based attachment (64/
45 percent); and rigid bar strap-based system with snap hook (64/45
percent). After the prices were provided, the UCRA restraint was most
preferred (39 percent), followed by the rigid bar anchorage restraint
with rigid bracket-based attachment (19 percent), the rigid bar strap-
based system with snap hook (15 percent), and the rigid bar anchorage
restraint with a buckle attached to it by webbing (14 percent). The
study stated that the reason behind the bracket-based rigid bar
anchorage option's being rated second instead of first is its higher
price and weight. Restraints equipped with variations of these UCRA and
rigid bar anchorage connectors also received support, as did the
baseline restraint, albeit in smaller percentages. MORPACE prepared a
final report on the clinic and its findings, which the agency placed in
docket NHTSA-1998-3390.
Following the issuance of the report, a number of motor vehicle and
child restraint manufacturers wrote to NHTSA concerning the findings.
Copies of these letters have been placed in docket 3390. GM and Indiana
Mills Manufacturing Inc. (IMMI) stated that they believed that the
clinic showed that consumers' preferences are highly in favor of the
flexible latchplate system. GM and IIMI stressed that the clinic showed
that consumers are willing to pay the added cost of the flexible
latchplate system for added security and performance, but that
consumers will not accept the cost and weight of a bracket-based rigid
bar anchorage child restraint.
Some manufacturers did not agree that the clinic necessarily showed
a preference for the flexible latchplate system. BMW, Volvo,
Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Fisher-Price and the University of
Michigan Child Passenger Protection Research Program believed that the
clinic showed that child restraint systems interfacing with the rigid
bars had a combined first choice preference of 48 percent, compared to
a 40 percent first choice preference for the flat latchplate. Chrysler
did not believe it was appropriate to add the proportions of
participants who expressed preferences for the rigid bar anchorage
variants and to express that sum as a preference for the round bar
anchorage. However, Chrysler believed that the clinic's findings are
limited in that they reflect consumer views on the ``ease of use'' of a
child restraint but not consumer preference for the vehicle anchorages
used. Chrysler also reiterated its belief, expressed in earlier
comments to the docket, that the rigid bar anchorage system has greater
potential safety benefits than the flexible latchplate system.
Ford believed that while it may not be statistically valid to add
the percentages of respondents favoring child restraints that attach to
the rigid bar anchorages, it would be ``directionally right, in that
the [rigid bar anchorages] are more flexible [design-wise] and can be
used with a wider variety of child restraints.'' Ford believed that the
clinic found that consumers want (1) an alternative way of attaching
child restraints, and (2) more than anything, a child restraint that
provides safety and security. Ford reiterated its belief that the rigid
bar anchorage system is the best vehicle system. Ford said the system
provides consumers with a wider variety of child restraints, and is the
most immobile, a feature that MORPACE has said signifies to consumers
that the seat is secure, which MORPACE says was ``the most important
criterion'' for the respondents in evaluating a child restraint.
Century Products stated that it believed that the high preference
rating for child restraints designed for the flexible latchplate system
is due to the familiarity of the latchplates. The company stated that
``the three designs using the 6 mm rigid bars in the vehicle also
showed acceptance by the respondents indicating that the 6 mm bar is
acceptable to users.''
A number of these commenters also said that the prototype child
restraints used in the clinic were of highly inconsistent quality. For
example, some believed that the rigid bar anchorage bracket-based
restraint was not representative because it was unrealistically heavy,
high, and upright,
[[Page 10796]]
in order to adapt the unmodified production Century restraint to a
rigid bar anchorage base. It was 3.6 kg (8 lb) heavier than the UCRA
restraint. They stated that, in contrast, the flexible latchplate
restraint and others did not include the weight of any of the
reinforcements that are needed for the restraint to meet Standard 213's
dynamic test and thus were lighter than would be an actual restraint.
They also believed that the vehicle's flexible latchplates used in the
clinic were substantially more sophisticated than what the agency had
proposed and thus far more costly. Chrysler also said that the $128
price given for the rigid bar anchorage bracket-based child restraint
was too high, because costs would be lowered if the bracket mechanism
were produced in high volume.
d. Canada Issues Rule on Tether Anchorages
In September 1998, Canada adopted its final rule amending its
tether anchorage requirement in section 210.1 of the Canadian Motor
Vehicle Safety Regulations. As a result of an effort to harmonize
internationally on tether anchorage requirements, NHTSA's proposal on
tether anchorages reflected almost all of the provisions that had been
proposed by Canada (March 15, 1997) prior to its final rule.
Since 1989, Canada had required that tether anchorages be installed
on all passenger cars. However, that requirement did not require tether
anchorages to be ``user-ready,'' i.e., it did not require the
installation of the hardware necessary for the attachment of the tether
strap. Consumers could not use the tether anchorage on the vehicle as
delivered from the factory. While Canada required that manufacturers
provide a pre-drilled hole in a reinforced location specifically
designed for the installation of the hardware, it did not require that
such hardware be installed. Consequently, parents typically had to take
their vehicle to a dealer or repair shop to have the hardware
installed. Canada's new rule requires the factory installation of user-
ready tether anchorages for all anchorages in passenger cars
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, and a year later in all
minivans and light trucks.
The Canadian rule requires a specified number of tether anchorages,
depending on vehicle type and the number of rows or seating positions
in the vehicle. Generally, it requires passenger cars and minivans to
have two or three anchorages. The rule specifies the zone in which a
tether anchorages must be located for a particular seating position. It
specifies strength requirements, and a method for testing the strength
of the anchorages.
The rule contains a number of changes to the test procedure that
Canada had proposed for testing the strength of the anchorages. The
proposal would have specified testing the anchorages by attaching a
strap to the anchorage and passing that strap forward over the seat
back. In response to comments and discussions with manufacturers,
Canada changed the test method to specify the use of one of two
prescribed static force application test devices. Both represent a
child restraint system with a tether. One device replicates a child
restraint that attaches to a rigid bar anchorage system. This device
will be used to test the tether anchorage in a seating position that
has the rigid bar anchorage system. The other represents a child
restraint that is attached by the vehicle's belt system, and is used to
test a tether anchorage at a position that is not equipped with a rigid
bar anchorage system. The test is conducted by installing the test
device on the seat using the seat belt or the rigid bars, as
appropriate, attaching the tether strap to the tether anchorage, and
applying a test force to the child restraint device, rather than
directly to the tether anchorage.
VI. Agency Decision Regarding Final Rule
a. Summary of the Final Rule
This final rule requires motor vehicle manufacturers to install
child restraint anchorage systems, consisting of lower rigid bar
anchorages and a user-ready upper tether anchorage, in their vehicles.
The 6 mm round bars in the vehicle seat must be rigidly mounted. Thus,
they may not be attached to the vehicle by webbing material. This rule
also requires child restraints to be permanently equipped with a means
of being attached to the lower vehicle anchorages. It does not,
however, specify either the design of the means of attachment or how
that means is permanently attached to the child restraint.
This rule requires vehicles to have two child restraint anchorage
systems at two rear designated seating positions, if the vehicle has at
least two rear seating positions. This rule also requires vehicles with
three or more rear designated seating positions to have a user-ready
upper tether anchorage at a third rear seating position.17
It amends the child restraint standard by reducing the limits on
allowable head excursion. The agency expects that in order to comply
with the reduced limits, most forward-facing child restraint models
will be equipped with an upper tether strap. When used, a tether
reduces head excursion and the likelihood of head impacts against the
vehicle structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ If a vehicle has a rear seat with insufficient space to
accommodate a rear facing infant seat, and is equipped with an OE
air bag cutoff switch that deactivates the air bag for the front
passenger position, one anchorage system must be provided in that
position, and another in a rear seating position to accommodate a
forward-facing child restraint. If a vehicle has no rear seat, and
is equipped with an OE air bag cutoff switch that deactivates the
air bag for the front passenger position, one anchorage system must
be provided in that position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide consumers with the rigid bar anchorage system as quickly
as possible, this rule will start a three-year phase-in of the
requirements for the rigid bars, beginning September 1, 2000. The bars
will ultimately be required in all passenger cars, and in trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less, and in buses (including school
buses) with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. There will be a
two-year phase-in of the user-ready tether anchorage for passenger cars
beginning September 1, 1999. The user-ready tether anchorage will be
required in the other vehicle types 18 beginning September
1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Because of practicability concerns, convertibles and school
buses are excluded from the tether anchorage requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child restraints will be required to have the components for
attaching to the rigid bars beginning September 1, 2002. The restraints
will be dynamically tested under Standard 213 when attached by those
components to rigid bars on the standard seat assembly specified in the
standard. They will be tested both with and without attaching a tether.
Child restraints will have to meet a reduced head excursion limit
beginning September 1, 1999. A tether will probably be needed to meet
this requirement, and one may be attached for the test. Child
restraints will also have to meet the standard's existing head
excursion limit when tested attached by a lap belt and nothing else, to
ensure that head excursion is limited if the tether is not used.
The estimated average cost of this rule is approximately $152
million annually. The cost of the rule for vehicles is estimated to be
about $85 million. The costs of the rule related to the vehicle will
range, per vehicle, from $2.82 (one rigid bar anchorage system in front
seat
[[Page 10797]]
only) to $6.62 (for a system in front seat and one in back seat or two
systems in rear seats, plus a tether anchorage). NHTSA estimates that
15 million vehicles will be affected annually: 9 million passenger cars
and light trucks with ``adequate'' rear seats, 3 million vehicles with
no rear seat, and 3 million vehicles that can only accommodate a
forward-facing child restraints in the rear seat (not a rear-facing
infant seat). The impact of the rule on child restraint systems is
estimated at $67 million (3.9 million child restraints at $17.19 per
restraint, based on webbing-attached connectors). The cost per child
restraint system varies depending on the type of connector used, e.g.,
a hook versus a buckle, and the means used to attach the connector to
the child restraint system, e.g., webbing versus a rigid attachment.
The annual benefits of the rule are estimated to be 36 to 50 lives
saved, and 1,231 to 2,929 injuries prevented.
b. Summary of Key Differences Between NPRM and Final Rule
The main difference between the final rule and the NPRM concerns
the lower anchorage portion of the child restraint anchorage system in
vehicles. Instead of permitting a choice between lower anchorages of
either the flexible latchplate system or the rigid bar system, the
final rule mandates the latter system. The NPRM would have allowed
vehicle manufacturers the option of installing the rigid bar system
only if they provided an adapter, such as a connector (that need not
have been permanently attached to the vehicle) that would have had a
component on one end that latches onto the rigid bar, and a latchplate
on the other, for attaching to buckles on a child restraint that is
designed for a flexible latchplate anchorage system. Commenters
overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would be
lost or misused by consumers. On reevaluating this issue, NHTSA agrees
that mandating a single system would better ensure that the child
restraint anchorage system is universal to all vehicles, for all child
restraints, and for all consumers regardless of the type of vehicle or
child restraint they may be using for a particular trip.
Second, this final rule requires vehicle manufacturers to rigidly-
mount the 6 mm bars. Thus, it does not permit the bars to be attached
to the vehicle by webbing, as had been proposed. The purpose of
requiring rigid mounting is to maintain better control over the
compatibility between child restraints and the anchorage system.
However, connectors on the child restraint are permitted either to be
attached by webbing, or to be rigidly mounted.
Other differences between this final rule and the NPRM relate to
provisions concerning: the types of vehicles and of child restraints
that are subject to the requirements; the number of anchorage systems
that are required in each vehicle; the visibility and placement of the
rigid bars in the vehicle; a requirement for an audible or visual
indicator that the child restraint is securely attached to the bars;
the strength requirements and test procedures for testing the child
restraint anchorage system and the tether anchorage; and leadtime for
and a phase-in of the requirements.
VII. Issue-by-Issue Discussion of the Agency Decision on Content of
Final Rule
a. NHTSA Determines the Anchorage Systems Are Essentially Equal on the
Merits
The agency initially gave preference to the flexible latchplate
anchorage system over the rigid bar anchorage system after weighing the
abilities of each system to accomplish the goals that the agency
believed a uniform attachment system should meet. 62 FR at 7867-7868.
NHTSA believed that an anchorage system should:
--Improve the compatibility between child restraint systems and vehicle
seats and belt systems, thereby decreasing the potential that a child
restraint was improperly installed;
--Ensure an adequate level of protection during crashes;
--Ensure correct child restraint system use by ensuring that the child
restraint systems are convenient to install and use, and will be
accepted by consumers;
--Ensure that the child restraint systems and anchorages are cost
effective and available within a reasonable leadtime; and,
--Achieve international compatibility of child restraint performance
requirements for uniform anchorage points.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the flexible latchplate system
would, on balance, best achieve these goals. The agency stated that the
rigid bar anchorage system and flexible latchplate anchorage system
appeared comparable in terms of safety performance and public
acceptance, but the flexible latchplate anchorage system appeared to
have advantages over the others with respect to its cost impact, and
near-term availability. The agency further stated that the flexible
latchplate anchorage system had advantages in terms of its usability
and visibility. The agency believed the familiarity of the components
(particularly the crucial connector pieces--buckles and latchplates--
that attach a child restraint to the vehicle system) was a definite
advantage over the other systems. Also, the agency believed that child
restraints designed for use with the flexible latchplate system were
not as bulky or heavy as child restraints designed for use with the
rigid bar anchorage system, which would increase the public acceptance
of the flexible latchplate system.
The agency's proposal to give preference for the flexible
latchplate system over the rigid bar anchorage system for the lower
anchorages was supported by some commenters, but opposed by most
commenters in their comments on the NPRM or in their post-comment
period submissions. Proponents of the flexible latchplate anchorage
system agreed with the agency's tentative conclusions in the NPRM that
the system appeared to be superior to the rigid bar system because a
child restraint made for the flexible latchplate anchorage system would
be less costly, bulky and heavy than a child restraint designed to
attach to a rigid bar anchorage system. Some commenters supported the
flexible latchplate anchorage system because they believed that a rule
based on that system could be implemented more quickly. Some believed
that the flexible latchplate system was preferable because its buckle
is simple, intuitive, and familiar to consumers. GM argued that the
AAMA/AIAM 1998 consumer clinic proved that consumers overwhelmingly
prefer the flexible latchplate anchorage system because of its superior
installation accuracy and acceptable costs, compared to alternative
concepts, including the rigid bar anchorage system.
Opponents of the flexible latchplate anchorage system disagreed
with those views. They believed the rigid bar anchorage system and the
flexible latchplate anchorage system would have similar cost, weight
and leadtime impacts. They stated that the agency's tentative decision
to give preference to the flexible latchplate anchorage system was
based on faulty premises, such as believing that the hardware
interfacing with the rigid bars would necessarily be costly and
unavailable in the near-term. These parties strongly disputed that the
1998 consumer clinic showed the flexible latchplate anchorage system
had greater public acceptance. In fact, many believed the clinic showed
a public preference for systems using the rigid bar anchorage system in
the vehicle,
[[Page 10798]]
because most of the respondents chose, as their first choice,
variations of child restraints that had attachments that were designed
to attach to the rigid bar anchorage system. (Forty-eight percent chose
child restraints designed to attach to the rigid bars, compared to 39
percent that chose child restraints designed for the flexible
latchplate system.)
After reviewing the comments and other new information before it,
NHTSA concluded it needed to revise its assessment of the relative
merits of the flexible latchplate system and the rigid bar anchorage
system. The agency's main reason for proposing to give preference to
the flexible latchplate system over the rigid bar anchorage system was
information indicating that the installation of rigid bar anchorage
systems in motor vehicles would make it necessary for child restraints
to be equipped with the following three features: two rigid prongs, or
brackets; a heavy supporting structure for those prongs or brackets;
and specialized jaw-like clamps to attach to the rigid lower anchorages
on the vehicle. This information consisted of statements by the
supporters of the rigid bar anchorage system describing the child
restraints and of the prototypes or mock-ups they had provided prior to
the NPRM. Those prototypes or mock-ups included all three of these
features. The addition of these features to child restraints would have
had a substantial cost impact on child restraints (essentially doubling
the price of a child restraint), and added substantially to its bulk
and weight. The agency also believed that manufacturers would need
substantial time to design child restraints with the brackets and
supporting structure. Further, NHTSA was concerned that consumers would
not be familiar with the new technology.
All commenters supporting the rigid bar anchorage system told the
agency that the brackets were not necessary to attach a child restraint
to the rigid bar anchorage system. Commenters, including many child
restraint manufacturers, said that a simple hook, made to attach to a
rigid bar, could and would be used by many child restraint
manufacturers if the rigid bar anchorage system were adopted. The hook
could be attached to the child restraint by means of webbing, identical
to the attaching of the buckle on a child restraint designed for the
flexible latchplate system. After the NPRM was published, some child
restraint manufacturers developed prototype child restraints, equipped
with hooks, to demonstrate to NHTSA the feasibility of using hooks as
the connector hardware and of using webbing for attaching hooks to a
child restraint. Further, almost all of the child restraint
manufacturers asserted that, if allowed, they would use straps to
attach the connector to the child restraint. These assertions
apparently reflected their judgment that the use of straps would be
practicable and publicly acceptable.
These new prototypes, reinforced by the new assertions of the child
restraint manufacturers, changed NHTSA's assessment of the relative
advantages of the flexible latchplate and rigid bar anchorage systems.
The emergence of straps as a viable means of attaching the connector
made it necessary for the agency to reverse its earlier tentative
conclusion that a child restraint must have the heavy brackets to
attach to a rigid bar anchorage system, and its derivative tentative
conclusions about related advantages of the flexible latchplate system
concerning the cost, bulk, and weight of child restraints designed for
the system.
NHTSA's cost estimates in the NPRM were based on the information
indicating that the brackets had to be used on the child restraint
system. The high cost of a rigid bar anchorage child restraint,
relative to a flexible latchplate child restraint, was mostly due to
the material then believed by the agency to be needed for the bracket
structure and not to the cost of the hardware connecting to the 6 mm
bar. Several commenters stated that buckles designed to attach to 6 mm
bars would, as production volume rose, ultimately be comparable to, if
not less than, the cost of the buckle of the flexible latchplate
system. NHTSA agrees with these statements because the types of
components (spring, latch, release button and casing) of current
prototype buckles designed to attach to a rigid bar and to the flexible
latchplate, are basically the same. Because the same types of
components are used in both buckles, it is reasonable to conclude that
the cost under similar production assumptions are likely to be similar.
Thus, there would be no significant cost difference between a child
restraint designed for the rigid bar anchorage system that uses webbing
to attach the connector to the restraint and a child restraint designed
for the flexible latchplate system. Accordingly, the agency now
concludes there need not be a cost advantage to the flexible latchplate
system compared to the rigid bar anchorage system.
NHTSA also believes that child restraints designed for the rigid
bar anchorage system would be comparable in weight and bulk to child
restraints designed for the flexible latchplate anchorage system if
they used webbing to attach the connector to the child restraint. The
incremental bulk and weight of a rigid bar anchorage child restraint,
relative to a flexible latchplate child restraint, was due to the
material then believed by the agency to be needed for the bracket
structure and not to the hardware connecting to the rigid bar.
Accordingly, there need not be an advantage to the flexible latchplate
anchorage system over the rigid bar anchorage system in terms of the
bulk and weight of the child restraints.
b. There Is Substantial Consumer Interest in Both Anchorage Systems
Supporters of the flexible latchplate anchorage system argue that
the AAMA/AIAM consumer clinic shows that consumers prefer their system
and that for this reason, the flexible latchplate system should
prevail. NHTSA's view of the clinic results is discussed in Appendix B.
In brief, the agency cannot conclude that the results clearly warrant
the agency's selection of either the flexible latchplate system or a
rigid bar anchorage system. The agency recognizes that consumers gave
their highest scores to the flexible latchplate design used in the
clinic. However, combining the results of the child restraints designed
for the rigid bar anchorage system accounted for an even larger number
of participants. Further, NHTSA believes that the high score of the
flexible latchplate design was at least partially due to the fact that
consumers are currently more familiar--and perhaps more comfortable--
with the buckle and latchplate design. The agency believes further that
once the rigid bar anchorage system and child restraints with the new
connectors are introduced, the public will become equally familiar and
comfortable with those new designs. Moreover, the agency anticipates
that consumers will be receptive to the design flexibility of the rigid
bar anchorage system. As discussed below in section d.2., the anchorage
system allows them to choose from a variety of connector hardware
designs and child restraint systems to satisfy their needs.
c. NHTSA Determines Only One Lower Anchorage System Can Be Selected
The NPRM would have allowed vehicle manufacturers the option of
installing the rigid bar anchorage system if they provided an adapter
(that need not be integral to the vehicle) that would enable a child
restraint that is designed for the flexible latchplate system to be
used with the rigid bars. The adapter would have to latch at one end
onto the rigid bar and at the other end onto the flexible latchplate
system buckle. Commenters overwhelmingly
[[Page 10799]]
opposed the concept of an adapter, believing that adapters would be
lost or misused by consumers. For example, Toyota Motor Corporation
stated that an adapter--
will further complicate the tightening procedure and therefore
securing the CRS will be more difficult. Accordingly, we believe
that there will be an increased possibility of misuse, resulting in
loose fit and/or improper securing of the CRS to the vehicle. In
addition, we believe this will add to the owner's confusion as to
how to properly affix this system. * * * In addition, Toyota is
concerned as to whether the owner of these vehicles will take the
necessary precautions to keep from losing the adapter(s), as any
additional loose articles in a vehicle are more likely to be
misplaced or lost.
After reviewing the comments, the agency concludes that mandating a
single type of anchorage system would ensure that motorists will find
the same child restraint anchorage system in all vehicles and that the
system will be compatible with all child restraints, regardless of the
make or model of vehicle or child restraint they may be using for a
particular trip. Allowing use of an adapter might not only perpetuate
existing child restraint compatibility problems, but also exacerbate
them beyond what they are today. Thus, the agency decided it must
choose one, and only one, system to require.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In the NPRM, the agency discussed its tentative conclusion
that J1819 and FMVSS No. 208's lockability requirement were
insufficient as alternative solutions to an independent child
restraint anchorage system. The agency did not receive any comments
opposing this. The agency also tentatively rejected Cosco's CSO
system as an alternative to the proposed child restraint anchorage
system. Cosco commented in disagreement with the agency. NHTSA's
final decision declining to use the CSO system is explained in
Appendix A to this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. NHTSA Selects the Rigid Bar Anchorage System Based on Its Advantages
Over the Flexible Latchplate Anchorage System
1. The First Advantage Is Harmonization of Standards
NHTSA's selection of the rigid bar anchorage system advances its
international harmonization policy goal of identifying and adopting
those non-US safety requirements that reflect equivalent or higher
levels of safety performance than the counterpart U.S. standard.
Requiring the rigid bar system will enhance the safety of child
restraints by making them easier to install and possibly more securely
installed than by means of the vehicle's belt system. Further,
harmonizing the U.S. standard permits vehicle and child restraint
manufacturers to have a greater measure of planning certainty and
predictability in designing and selling their products, helps ensure
that parents are provided an anchorage system that meets their safety
needs at the lowest possible cost, and facilitates the global marketing
of child restraints.
NHTSA's selection of the rigid bar anchorage system also accords
with its statutory obligations. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (July 26, 1979, P.L. 96-39, Sec. 1(a), 93 Stat. 144.) (19
U.S.C. Sec. 2501 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to take into
consideration international standards and, if appropriate, base the
agencies' standards on international standards. In addition, the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113)
requires all Federal agencies to use technical standards ``that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using
such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by the agencies and departments.''
The rigid bar anchorage system is the one most likely to be chosen
as a harmonized design under the auspices of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).20 The rigid bar
anchorage system is supported by the expert group within WP.29 that
considers issues relating to child restraints and vehicles, the Group
of Rapporteurs for Passive Safety (GRSP). At the 23rd session of the
GRSP meeting of experts in June 1998, the GRSP accepted a proposal for
requiring rigid bar anchorages. At the 24th session of the GRSP meeting
of experts in December 1998, the GRSP formed an informal group to look
into developing a proposal to be presented at the May 1999 GRSP
meeting. The proposal is to consist of alternative means, including a
top tether, to reduce the possibility of undesirable rotation that
might otherwise occur when a child restraint is attached to some
vehicle seats by means of the two lower rigid bar anchorages only. The
GRSP plans to discuss the proposal during the May 1999 meeting and
expects to decide during its December 1999 meeting whether to adopt a
means to address the concern of possible undesirable rotation and, if
so, which means should be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The UN/ECE Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles
(WP.29) administers an agreement, known as the 1958 Agreement,
concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for
wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts and develops motor vehicle
safety regulations for application primarily in Europe. (While U.S.
officials actively participate in WP.29 and thus participate in the
development of standards, the United States is not a Contracting
Party to the 1958 Agreement. Thus, it cannot vote on whether a
regulation is to be adopted by the Contracting Parties.) Various
expert groups within WP.29 make recommendations to WP.29 as to
whether regulations should be adopted as ECE regulations. WP.29 in
turn makes recommendation to the Contracting Parties to the 1958
Agreement. It is ultimately the Contracting Parties that vote on
whether a recommended regulation is to be adopted under the
Agreement as an ECE regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rigid bar anchorage system is also favored in other
international forums as well. The rigid bar anchorage system, with a
top tether anchorage, is the system preferred by Canada and Australia
and is the child restraint anchorage system most likely to be adopted
by those countries. Both of these countries already require a user-
ready tether anchorage for attaching child restraints.
The International Standards Organization (ISO) also appears to be
moving toward adoption of the rigid bar system. The ISO working group
that has been developing the rigid bar anchorage system is completing
its working documents on the system and is preparing to circulate the
draft standard to the ISO member bodies for voting. The ISO working
group circulated a committee draft report for voting. The ballots
received by the deadline of May 4, 1998 showed that no country
disagreed to circulate a draft of the international standard to the ISO
Central Secretariat for ballot. (The U.S. abstained from voting because
agreement has not been reached within the U.S. domestic auto industry
on the use of rigid versus flexible anchorages.) NHTSA understands that
the full committee will vote on the draft international standard in the
near future. To be adopted as an ISO standard, the draft has to be
approved by at least 75 percent of the member bodies casing a vote.
2. The Second Advantage Is Enhanced Design Flexibility Which Provides a
Reasonably Predictable Prospect for Design Improvements That Will
Enhance Either Safety or Public Acceptability or Both
The rigid bar anchorage system encourages design flexibility to a
greater extent than the flexible latchplate anchorage system. The rigid
bar anchorage system has the advantage of allowing child restraint
manufacturers flexibility in developing a variety of possible
connectors to the bars. Unlike the flexible latchplate system, which
envisions a specific design of a buckle to connect to the latchplate,
the rigid bar anchorage system gives child restraint manufacturers
maximum leeway in
[[Page 10800]]
designing connectors.21 For example, child restraint
manufacturers may use designs ranging from jaw-like clamps to buckles
to simple hooks, and may attach these to the child restraint using
means ranging from brackets to webbing. A number of child restraint
manufacturers support the rigid bar system because of its design
flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Some opponents of the rigid bar anchorage system were
concerned that Britax may hold a patent on a specific ``jaw'' type
of connector and could restrict the free use and development of the
connector by other manufacturers. In communications between Britax
and NHTSA, Britax has repeatedly stated that it does not hold a
patent on the connector. The agency has reviewed copies of patents
5,524,965, 5,487,588 and 5,466,044 which Britax submitted to NHTSA,
and agrees with Britax that it did not have a patent on the
connector itself. (The patents were for various designs of child
restraints that had the jaw connector.) In further response to a
request by NHTSA, by letter dated August 10, 1998, Britax informed
the agency that it has filed a Terminal Disclaimer to waive all
patent rights to ISOFIX connectors described in patents 5,524,965,
5,487,588 and 5,466,044. A copy of this letter has been placed in
the docket. The effect of Britax's action is to dedicate these
patents to the public, thus waiving any patent protections it may
have for these patents. This puts to rest the concerns that were
raised about Britax possibly restricting the free use of development
of the connector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design flexibility of the rigid bar system also has
implications for potential improvements in the safety provided by child
restraints. For example, Century Products has indicated that the rigid
bar system could enable them to design booster seats (a type of child
restraint system, see 49 CFR 571.213, S4) for children over 18 kg (40
lb) that could better limit head excursion than present boosters. A
rigid attachment on the booster restraint might reduce some of the
excessive forward motion that a child restraint attached to the vehicle
seat by a belt experiences when tested with a 6-year-old dummy, due to
elongation of the belts.
Consumers would also benefit from design flexibility, in that they
could choose from a variety of child restraint systems to purchase to
suit their needs or tastes. For some, a one-step ``plug-in'' design,
such as that seen on Britax prototypes with rigid connectors, might be
the most convenient or desirable, while others may prefer a child
restraint that has a connector attached by webbing because such a
system would weigh and cost less than restraints that have rigid
connectors.
3. The Third Advantage Is Possible Safety Benefits
The NPRM stated that both the flexible latchplate anchorage system
and the rigid bar anchorage system have performed satisfactorily in
dynamic tests, which implied that both would provide comparable levels
of safety. Supporters of the rigid bar anchorage system disagreed with
the agency, suggesting that that system has the potential to better
protect children with regard to two aspects of safety.
The first safety aspect concerns the relative performance of the
systems in side impacts. Michael Griffiths and Paul Kelly of the Roads
and Traffic Authority (RTA), New South Wales, Australia, submitted data
on side impact sled tests RTA conducted comparing the performance of
the CAUSFIX system (CAUSFIX is the rigid bar anchorage system with a
tether anchorage, which is the system NHTSA is adopting in this final
rule, see footnote 13, supra), the flexible latchplate system, and a
lap belt plus tether system. (``Comparative Side Impact Testing of
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,'' Kelly, Roads and Traffic
Authority, New South Wales, Special Report 96/100, March 1997.) The
side impact tests were conducted in accordance with Australian Standard
(AS) 3691.1, except for the addition of a simulated door structure,
replicating a rear door of a large sedan, adjacent to the test seat.
Testing was conducted with the test seat mounted at both 90 degrees and
45 degrees to the direction of sled travel. The lower anchorage points
for the CAUSFIX were positioned 280 mm (11 inches) apart on the test
seat structure, with the inboard anchorage approximately 610 mm (24
inches) from the inner surface of the door. An instrumented 9-month-old
dummy was used in all the tests.
RTA found that, for forward-facing seats,22 only the
CAUSFIX was able to prevent contact between either the dummy's head or
the child restraint and the door structure in the 90 degree test. RTA
stated that head contact with the door was evident in the test
involving the flexible latchplate system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The rear-facing seats were tethered. Because today's rule
does not require rear-facing infant seats to have a tether, this
discusses only the tests of the forward-facing seats.
This appeared to be largely the result of the restraint rotating
towards the door at the end of its sideways movement. As a
consequence, the dummy's head moved forward relative to the CRS
[child restraint system] and contacted the front portion of the
side-wing. In turn, the side-wing deflected and allowed the head to
roll around its front edge, as the CRS rebounded from the door * *
*. In contrast, the CAUSFIX system did not allow rotation * * *. The
CAUSFIX concept offered better head protection compared to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conventional seat belt/top tether systems.
(Id., page 5.)
Many of the supporters of the rigid bar anchorage system included
comments on their belief that side impact benefits could be attained
with the system. In contrast, GM stated in its comment (pp. 10-11):
It has been alleged that the proposed combination of UCRA
anchorages and a strap-based CRS may not provide adequate protection
in a high severity lateral impact. However, no field accident
statistics have been provided to support an allegation that high
speed lateral impact performance should be a primary area of concern
in the U.S. In fact, data analyzed by NHTSA researchers demonstrate
that the primary child safety issue is the non-use of CRSs. A
secondary concern is misuse of the CRS. Misuse includes failing to
properly fasten the CRS's internal harness system or improperly
securing the CRS in the vehicle.
While various groups continue to develop proposals for lateral
impact test protocols and related dummy and injury assessment
techniques, it appears unlikely that consensus on these topics will
be reached for years. The continued debate should not delay
implementation of improved CRSs and UCRA systems. This is
particularly true since it is not apparent that the current U.S.
field situation demonstrates a need for a side impact crash
evaluation protocol. Further, it has not been established that
lateral dummy head excursion is a meaningful predictor of injury in
side impacts. Even if it were, NHTSA tests have shown that the
existence of a top tether reduces lateral head excursion by one
third compared to a current CRS secured without a top tether * * *.
NHTSA has evaluated these and all other comments on this issue and
concludes that the agency cannot make a precise determination of the
relative side impact benefits based on the information available thus
far. The RTA's test data were few in number. Further, the real world
relevance of the 90 degree test is unclear at this point. NHTSA does
not know if the path of a child's head in a 90 degree impact will
necessarily be lateral. The path will depend on a variety of factors,
including the speed of the struck vehicle, and the point of impact to
the struck vehicle (forward part, middle, rear part). Further, NHTSA
cannot determine at this time whether reduced head excursions would
necessarily reduce injuries and fatalities in side impacts. Crash data
should be analyzed to determine answers to these issues. The agency has
been working with the ISO working group on the development of a side
impact test procedure. NHTSA will be taking part in an evaluation of
the side impact test protocols in the future. For now, however, the
agency cannot conclude that the rigid bar anchorage system is more
advantageous than the flexible latchplate system in side impacts.
The second aspect of safety on which proponents of the rigid bar
anchorage system commented was that the combination of rigid lower
anchorages
[[Page 10801]]
on both vehicles and child restraints would virtually guarantee that
the child restraint would be snugly attached to the vehicle seat.
Commenters stated that studies and informal clinics have shown that
consumers regularly fail to properly tighten the belt used to install
child restraints. With a rigid bar anchorage system on both the vehicle
and the child restraint, the child restraint is secured automatically
once the consumer properly attaches the two rigid points of the seat,
so there is no need for a separate tightening action by the consumer.
Conversely, GM stated that concerns about parents not tensioning the
flexible latchplate belts are unfounded, based on the findings of GM's
consumer preference clinic (GM did not elaborate on those findings).
A number of consumer advocates urged NHTSA to adopt the rigid bar
anchorage system because they have witnessed that parents often do not
adequately tighten the vehicle belt attaching the child restraint to
the vehicle. A child restraint with rigid attachments designed to
attach to rigid bar anchorages in the vehicle would eradicate the
problem of excessive slack in the belts.23 By adopting the
rigid bar anchorage system, this final rule provides consumers the
rigid bar anchorage system in the vehicle and provides them the
opportunity to purchase a child restraint with the rigid attachments if
they want the more convenient system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Some commenters suggested that NHTSA require automatic
retractors on child restraints that use webbing to attach the
connector, such as child restraints using webbing to attach the
connector to the rigid bar. NHTSA estimates that the consumer cost
of a retractor would be $2.50 to $3 per retractor, or $5 to $6 per
child restraint. To minimize the cost impacts of this rule, NHTSA
has decided not to require automatic retractors on child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. NHTSA's Final Rule Is Not Identical to the Draft ISO Standard
This final rule adopts most of the requirements under consideration
by the ISO, adopts some that are not part of the ISO draft standard,
and adopts some requirements that are dissimilar to those under
consideration by the ISO. These are discussed below. Other differences
with the draft ISO standard are discussed throughout this section
(VII).
4. Bars May Not Be Attached to the Vehicle by Webbing Materials
The NPRM proposed to permit vehicle manufacturers to install
``semi-rigid'' anchorages in vehicles for the child restraint anchorage
system. Semi-rigid bar anchorages refers to 6 mm bars that are attached
by non-rigid material (webbing), extending from the vehicle seat bight.
Semi-rigid bar anchorages basically look like the anchorages of the
flexible latchplate system, except with a 6 mm round bar attached to
the end of the webbing instead of a latchplate. The term ``semi-rigid
anchorages'' is from the draft ISO standard (ISO/22/12/WG1, June 1998,
Annex A), which permits vehicle manufacturers the option of installing
semi-rigid bar anchorages as an interim alternative to the anchorages
that are rigidly held in place. The draft ISO standard permits the use
of semi-rigid bar anchorages for a limited period of time as an interim
measure to address the concerns that had been expressed by some U.S.
vehicle and child restraint manufacturers toward rigid bar anchorages.
NHTSA's proposal allowed semi-rigid anchorages to harmonize to the
extent possible with the version of the prospective ISO standard.
After reevaluating this issue, NHTSA has decided to require vehicle
manufacturers to rigidly mount the 6 mm bars. Thus, bars may not be
attached to the vehicle by webbing, as had been proposed. The agency
made this decision to maintain better control over the compatibility
between child restraints and the anchorage system. Requiring one type
of attachment system on the vehicle (i.e., requiring the 6 mm bars to
be rigidly mounted) better standardizes the vehicle anchorage system,
which reduces the potential for confusion on the part of parents (who
might be confused if they are looking for or expecting one type of
anchorage system and come across another), and the misuse that
typically results from confusion.24 To determine whether a
bar is ``rigidly'' mounted to the vehicle, this final rule specifies
that the bar must be attached to the vehicle such that it will not
deform (e.g., elongate, move, or deflect) when subjected to a 100
Newton (N) force in any direction. To further standardize the system,
this final rule limits the length of the bars to not less than 25 mm,
but not more than 40 mm. The upper limit is to reduce the likelihood
that the bars may bend in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Connectors on the child restraint are permitted to be
attached by webbing, or they may be rigidly mounted. Design
flexibility in attaching the connector to the child restraint
enables child restraint manufacturers to better tailor their
products to meet consumer demand, and reduces the cost impact on
consumers purchasing child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if NHTSA had decided to give vehicle manufacturers the option
of installing non-rigidly mounted bars, it appears that they would not
take advantage of that opportunity. Vehicle manufacturers supporting
the rigid bar anchorage system did not indicate in their comments or
other submissions that they would install non-rigid bar anchorages.
NHTSA believes most, if not all, want to install the rigid bar
anchorages. They emphasized what they believe to be superior side
impact performance attributed to the rigid bar anchorage system, which
can only be attained by use of a rigid system. They liked the fact that
the rigid bar anchorage system did not give the appearance of
``clutter'' on vehicle seats from sets of child restraint anchorage
belts and latchplates. Further, it appears that the provision for semi-
rigid anchorages was included in the ISO draft standard to address what
the working group believed was a desire to use such anchorages in this
country. The Group of Experts on Passive Safety of the ECE stated in
commenting on the NPRM that ``[t]here is no benefit in Europe opting
for a semi-rigid system as an interim step.'' NHTSA understands this to
mean that European manufacturers are not interested in installing semi-
rigid anchorages as an interim step prior to the installation of rigid
anchorages.
2. The Bars Must Be Visible or the Vehicle Seat Back Marked To Assist
Consumers in Locating Them
While NHTSA has departed from its proposal in order to harmonize
with revised location and visibility/marking requirements for rigidly-
mounted anchorage bars in the draft ISO standard, the agency has not
followed that draft standard in all respects. In the NPRM, the agency
proposed location requirements for rigidly-mounted 6 mm bar anchorages.
The location requirements were based on requirements developed in draft
by the ISO working group in ISO/WD13216-1i, November 15, 1996. The NPRM
proposed that the 6 mm diameter bars would be located using a child
restraint fixture whose configuration and dimensions replicate a child
restraint system. (The NPRM referred to the fixture as the ``child
restraint apparatus.'' For convenience, and in response to VW's
suggestion in its comment, this final rule uses the term ``child
restraint fixture'' (CRF), which is the term used in the draft ISO
standard.) The CRF would be placed on the vehicle seat cushion and
against the seat back. Anchorage bars that are rigidly attached were
proposed to be located 50 mm (about 2 inches) behind of the rearmost
lower corner surface of the fixture (called point Z). They also must
not be more than 120 mm from the H point of the seating position. (The
H point is the mechanically hinged hip point of a
[[Page 10802]]
manikin which simulates the actual pivot center of the human torso and
thigh. See definition, 49 CFR Sec. 571.3.)
In its June 1997 draft revision of the ISO standard, WG1 changed
the rearward location requirement to specify that rigidly mounted bars
shall be not more than 70 mm (2.7 in) behind point Z. (The limit on the
forward placement of the bars was not changed.) This specification is
reflected in the June 1998 draft standard. The distance for the fore-
aft placement of the bars was increased from 50 mm to 70 mm (2 to 2.7
in) to make allowances for extremely contoured rear seats in some types
of sport cars. Contoured seat cushions or seat backs in these vehicles
may make it difficult to place the bars within 50 mm (2 in) of the CRF
without having the bars be so far forward in the seat bight that they
interfere with the comfort or safety of adult occupants.
Some commenters (Century, Gerry Baby Products, IMMI, Evenflo, and
Cosco) were concerned about the visibility and accessibility of the
bars at the seat bight. Other commenters pointed out that the ISO
working group would be revising its draft standard and suggested that
NHTSA should reference the location requirements of the revised draft
standard.
After evaluating the comments, NHTSA has decided to adopt the
limits on the forward (not more than 120 mm from the H-point of the
seating position) and rearward (not more than 70 mm behind point Z)
placement of the bars in the current draft ISO standard. The agency has
determined that the 70 mm distance is needed to ensure that the bars
are rearward enough in vehicles with contoured cushions to limit
excessive head excursions for children in a crash 25 and to
avoid injuring the person occupying the vehicle seat in a crash or
interfering with his or her comfort during normal vehicle operation. At
the same time, the agency is mindful of the concerns of child restraint
manufacturers that the child restraint anchorage system must be visible
and accessible to be properly used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For a discussion of the interaction of child restraints and
forward-mounted anchorages, see the NPRM, 62 FR at 7859, columns 1-
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA believes that most vehicles, except those with highly
contoured seats, will have the bars 50 to 60 mm (2 to 2.4 in) from the
CRF. At this distance, the agency believes that the bars would
generally be visible at the seat bight without compressing the seat
cushion or seat back.
The final rule requires that vehicles in which the bars are not
visible must have a permanent mark on the vehicle seat back at each
bar's location. The permanent mark required by this final rule is a
small 13 mm (\1/2\ inch) diameter circle in a color that contrasts with
the seat material and that is located above each individual anchorage,
to help users locate and use the bars. The mark will indicate the
presence of the anchorage system and act as a guide showing where to
engage the bars. Consumers may not otherwise learn of the existence of
a child restraint anchorage system in a particular vehicle or at a
particular seating position in a vehicle without some type of visual
reminder that the anchorage system is present. Even when they know the
bars are present, they may not know precisely where in the seat bight
to look for the bars. NHTSA notes if vehicle manufacturers do not want
to mark their seats for esthetic or cost reasons, they need not do so
if they install the bars such that there is an unobstructed view of the
bars at an angle of 30 degrees from a horizontal plane tangent to the
seat cushion.
This visibility requirement is significantly different from the one
that NHTSA proposed and somewhat different from the visibility
requirement in the draft ISO standard. In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed
that, for rigid bar anchorages, inter alia, at least one lower
anchorage bar shall be readily visible to the person installing a child
restraint. That proposal was based on the ISO draft version in
existence at the time. The ISO working group changed those requirements
in the June 1997 draft version to specify that, wherever possible, at
least one lower anchorage bar, one guidance fixture, or one seat
marking feature (significantly larger than the one specified in NHTSA's
final rule) shall be readily visible to the person installing the child
restraint. NHTSA has determined that the proposed visibility
requirement for the bars would have likely precluded vehicle
manufacturers from placing the bars at the maximum 70 mm distance from
the CRF, since at that distance the bars may not be visible. As stated
above, the bars may need to be placed at the maximum distance on
extremely contoured seats for the safety and comfort of adult
passengers seated in that seating position. Because of this, the agency
is not adopting its proposal that at least one of the bars has to be
visible.
The NPRM requested comments on whether the webbing attaching the
anchorage hardware on the child restraint should be color coded to
distinguish the webbing from the straps comprising the harness for the
child. A number of commenters supported color coding, while others did
not. The agency has decided not to require color coding of the
attachment system at this time. The Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia (ICBC) and IMMI report contrasting experiences with regard to
the propensity of clinic participants to confuse the webbing attaching
the buckles of the flexible latchplate system to the child restraint
with the webbing of the child restraint's internal harness. NHTSA notes
that intermixing appears to be far less likely with the rigid bar
system than with the flexible latchplate system because the types of
connectors used to attach to the rigid bars are not likely to look like
the buckles used for the child restraint harnesses.
3. A Tether Anchorage Is Not Required by the Draft ISO Standard, but Is
Required by This Final Rule
The NPRM proposed to require user-ready top tether anchorages in
vehicles. The draft ISO standard does not at this time include a
provision for tether anchorages. Some supporters of a rigid system on
both vehicles and child restraints believe that some restraints made to
attach to the vehicle by means of a rigid attachment can meet a more
stringent head excursion limit without a tether.
Test data show that an attached tether substantially improves the
ability of a child restraint to protect against head impacts in a
crash, when the child restraint is attached to the vehicle seat by the
belt system or by a flexible latchplate anchorage system. In the U.S.,
parents have not attached the tethers in vehicles that lack a user-
ready tether anchorage. However, Canada's experience indicates that
parents are more likely to attach the tethers when a user-ready tether
anchorage is factory-installed. Overall, commenters to the NPRM agreed
with the agency that consumer-ready tether anchorages in vehicles are
needed to increase the likelihood that consumers will attach a tether.
For these reasons, and because a large proportion of child restraints
will likely be attached to the child restraint anchorage system by
webbing material, NHTSA believes there is good reason to require a
user-ready tether anchorage in vehicles. The agency notes that the
requirement for a user-ready tether anchorage will harmonize with
Canadian requirements adopted in September 1998.
f. The Types of Vehicles That Are Subject to the Adopted Requirements
The NPRM proposed to apply the requirement for a child restraint
anchorage system to passenger cars, and
[[Page 10803]]
to trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses under 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The agency had
tentatively decided to include vehicles with a GVWR between 3,856 and
4,536 kg (8,500 and 10,000 lb) in an effort to ensure that such a child
restraint anchorage system would be available in vehicles used to
transport children to child care programs.
Commenters on the proposed applicability of the rule discussed
whether there was a need to apply the rule to all vehicles above 3,856
kg (8,500 lb) GVWR. The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC),
GM and Chrysler believed that the requirement should not apply to
vehicles above 3856 kg (8,500 lb) because most vehicles in the 3856 to
4536 kg (8,500 to 10,000 lb) category are for commercial applications
other than passenger transport. AORC said that if NHTSA wishes to apply
a rule to vehicles above 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) to regulate vehicles used
for child care programs, the agency should apply the rule to school
buses and not to all vehicles greater than 3,856 kg (8,500 lb).
The Mobile Teaching School Bus Project of Indiana University
commented that a final rule should also apply to large school buses
(over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR) to address issues relating to the
transportation of infants, toddlers and preschoolers on school buses.
The American Academy of Pediatrics also said that all school buses
should be subject to the rule. In contrast, the Lake Cumberland Head
Start expressed concern that applying the rule to school buses would
``skyrocket the cost of a new bus'' and could have a very detrimental
effect on the Head Start program budget. The National Association of
State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services expressed concern
whether the agency would be justified in applying the rule to school
buses. Chrysler questioned whether the proposed rule would be
appropriate for school buses, believing that a requirement for only two
child restraint anchorage systems ``would hardly meet the needs of the
users.'' Chrysler said that anchorage systems could be specified as a
matter of contract on the part of individual school bus purchasers.
After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has decided to limit the
applicability of the rule to passenger cars and to MPVs and trucks with
a GVWR of 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less, and to buses (including school
buses) with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less. The agency is not applying the
rule to other vehicles with a GVWR in the 3,856 to 4,536 kg (8,500 to
10,000 lb) range because most vehicles in that range typically do not
carry child restraints. The agency is not applying the rule to school
buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) because this was
not proposed, and the agency has not had the benefit of full and
meaningful comment on this issue.
Buses with a GVWR of up to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) are included in the
final rule because they are regularly used to transport children small
enough to be in child restraints. Chrysler believed that a requirement
that specifies only two child restraint anchorage systems on buses used
to transport children to child care programs would not meet the needs
of the care givers. NHTSA urges purchasers who anticipate that they
will be needing more than two child restraint systems in their vehicles
to order their vehicle with the additional child restraint anchorage
systems necessary to meet their needs. The agency has drafted this
final rule to apply the standard's configuration, location, strength
and marking requirements to any additional voluntarily-installed rigid
bar anchorage system installed on a new school bus, or on any other
vehicle. This is to ensure that children will be provided the same high
level of crash protection no matter which particular child restraint
anchorage system they may be using at the time of a crash. The
configuration, location, strength and marking requirements will apply
to any rigid bar anchorage system installed on a new vehicle beginning
September 1, 1999.
g. The Number of Anchorage Systems That Are Required in Each Vehicle
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require a child restraint
anchorage system at each of two rear seating positions. The NPRM did
not specify which rear seating positions would have had to be equipped
with the anchorage systems. As a practical matter, manufacturers were
likely to install the anchorages in the two outboard positions because
the anchorages could best fit there in most passenger cars. It would be
difficult to fit anchorage systems side-by-side, e.g., in the center
rear seat and at an adjacent outboard seat in small vehicles. The
agency requested information from commenters on whether there is
information indicating a need for an anchorage system at more than two
positions, such as demographic data on the number of children who are
typically transported in child restraints in a family vehicle.
Many commenters addressed the issue of how many seating positions
should have a child restraint anchorage systems. Most of them
recommended that either all rear seating positions in cars should be so
equipped, or at least an additional (i.e., third) tether anchor should
be required. Presumably, as a practical matter, the additional tether
would be installed in the rear center position. A few commenters
submitted demographic data to support their position that more than two
anchorage systems are needed in vehicles. However, these data did not
show that there were a significant number of families with three or
more children in child restraints. To minimize the cost of this rule,
this rule adopts the proposal for two full child restraint anchorage
systems.
However, NHTSA is requiring that if a vehicle has at least three
designated seating positions in the rear seat or second and third row
of seats, another seating position, other than an outboard position,
shall be equipped with a user-ready tether anchorage. This requirement
addresses the concerns of many commenters that the center rear seating
position in cars would not have an improved means of attaching child
restraints, even though that is the position preferred by many adults
to place a restraint. In the typical family car with three rear seating
positions, the center rear seating position would thus have a tether
anchorage in addition to the lap belt (and in more and more cars, a lap
and shoulder (Type II) belt), to give consumers flexibility in where
they choose to restrain their children. NHTSA is not requiring that one
of the two independent anchorage systems be placed in the rear center
position in a vehicle having such a seating position because, as
explained above, it may be difficult to fit the lower anchorages of two
child restraint anchorage systems, or two child restraint systems,
adjacent to each other in the rear seat of small vehicles.26
The final rule also requires that, in vehicles with three or more rows
of seating positions, at least one child restraint anchorage system
must be at a seating position in the second row. Some parents may want
to place the child restraint in the second row rather than further back
in the vehicle to comfort or supervise the restrained child from a
closer distance. This requirement ensures that a child restraint
anchorage system will be available in the second row to such a parent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NHTSA is allowing manufacturers to install one built-in
child restraint system in lieu of one of the required tether
anchorages or one of the required child restraint anchorage systems.
A built-in child restraint system is a child restraint system that
is a permanent and integral part of the vehicle. See S4, 49 CFR
Sec. 571.213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10804]]
To better ensure that a vehicle's designated seating position and
child restraint anchorage system on that seat will be able to fit a
child restraint, this final rule requires the vehicle to be designed
such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the
lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system. If the CRF
cannot attach to the child restraint anchorage system, the vehicle
cannot be certified as meeting Standard 225, the standard adopted today
for child restraint anchorage systems. When testing for compliance with
this requirement, NHTSA will place adjustable seat backs in the
manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the manner specified
by the manufacturer. The nominal design riding position should be the
same position that the manufacturer recommends in its instructions to
parents. Adjustable seats will be adjusted to their full rearward and
full downward position.
This final rule requires that any tether anchorage or child
restraint anchorage system installed in a new vehicle must meet the
configuration, location and strength requirements of the standard. This
requirement applies to voluntarily-installed anchorages that are
installed in a new vehicle in addition to those required by the
standard. This is to better ensure that the anchorages will perform
adequately and that a child will be assured a requisite level of
performance no matter which tether anchorage or child restraint
anchorage system is used. These requirements will apply to any child
restraint anchorage installed on a new vehicle beginning September 1,
1999.
h. Lockability Requirement Will Be Retained Until 2012
The NPRM requested comment on whether the ``lockability''
requirement in S7.1.1.5 of Standard No. 208, ``Occupant Crash
Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208) should be deleted as unnecessary if
requirements for a child restraint anchorage system are adopted. The
agency wished to explore whether a lockability requirement may not be
needed for a seating position with a universal anchorage system since
the vehicle's belt would no longer be used to attach a child restraint
with attachment devices. On the other hand, the agency also recognized
that lockability might be needed to attach child restraints that are
not equipped with attaching devices, even if the vehicle seat has such
a system.
Graco, SafeRide News, AORC, GM, Indiana University, Advocates,
Ford, Chrysler and the Center for Auto Safety commented on this issue.
All of these commenters said that vehicle seats with a child restraint
anchorage system should still be subject to the lockability requirement
to meet the needs of parents using a child restraint that is not
equipped with attachment devices. GM and Ford suggested that
lockability could be deleted some time after all child restraints are
equipped for the child restraint anchorage system.
The agency agrees that the lockability requirement should be
retained until virtually all child restraint systems in use have the
attachments that connect the restraint to the child restraint anchorage
system. Until then, the vehicle belts should be lockable to use with a
child restraint that is not equipped with attachment devices. The
agency believes that, on average, child restraints are used not more
than 10 years. Under today's rule, all new child restraints will be
required to have attachments that connect to the child restraint
anchorage system beginning in 2002. Because child restraints last on
average about 10 years, by 2012, most child restraints in use will be
able to use the child restraint anchorage system and will not need
lockable belts. This rule rescinds the lockability requirement
beginning September 1, 2012. The requirement is rescinded on that date
for just those seating systems with a child restraint anchorage system,
and not for all seats.
GM and Ford also suggested that the lockability requirement be
deleted for the air bag equipped right front passenger seat, in light
of the NPRM's proposal to disallow a child restraint anchorage system
in that position in vehicles that lack an OE on-off switch for the air
bag. NHTSA has decided not to delete the requirement at this time.
Notwithstanding the efforts of the agency, industry, State and local
officials and safety advocates to urge parents to place children in the
rear seats, some parents may decide to place toddler seats in the front
passenger seat with an air bag, or with an air bag and an on-off
switch. In that situation, the lockability of the lap and shoulder
belts would help ensure that the belt holds the child restraint system
as tightly as possible against the seat back of the front seat, as far
away as feasible from the air bag and the relatively hard structure of
the dashboard. Lockable belts may be distinguished from a standardized,
independent anchorage system in that the presence of the latter
implies, more than a lockable belt whose lockability feature is not
obvious, that the seat is appropriate for a child restraint system.
This may not be the case if an air bag is present.
On September 18, 1998, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to upgrade
the agency's occupant protection standard to require advanced air bags
(63 FR 49958). The agency proposed to add new requirements to prevent
air bags from seriously injuring children and other occupants. When the
final rule on that rulemaking is issued, NHTSA will possibly delete the
requirement in today's final rule that an independent child restraint
anchorage system must not be in the front seat of a vehicle that lacks
an OE on-off switch and the related requirement concerning the
lockability provision applying to that seating position. This issue
will be addressed at the appropriate time in the context of that
rulemaking.
i. Strength Requirements for Lower Rigid Bars of Child Restraint
Anchorage System and Compliance Test Procedures
In the NPRM, the agency proposed that each lower anchorage would be
tested separately by applying a force of 5,300 N (1,190 lb) to the
anchorage in the forward horizontal direction parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal axis. The force would be applied by means of a belt strap
that is fitted at one end with hardware for applying the force and at
the other end with hardware for attaching to an anchorage or connector.
The agency proposed that the force would be applied so that the 5,300 N
(1,190 lb) force is attained within 30 seconds, with an onset rate not
exceeding 135,000 N (30,337 lb) per second, and would be maintained at
the 5,300 N (1,190 lb) level for at least 10 seconds. The NPRM would
have specified that when tested in this manner, no portion of any
component attaching to the lower anchorage bars shall move forward more
than 125 mm (5 inches), and that there shall be no complete separation
of any anchorage component. The test procedure and force levels were
based on suggestions from petitioners AAMA et al. on the flexible
latchplate anchorage system.
GM and Ford suggested that loading all three anchorages at one time
(the two lower anchorages and the top tether anchorage) is the most
appropriate method to evaluate in a static load test how a child
restraint will perform dynamically in limiting forward excursion. GM
recommended using a fixture, representing a child restraint, in the
static pull test. GM believed that use of the fixture more accurately
depicts how the child restraint will perform in a crash. The fixture
would be attached to the lower anchorages and to the top tether
anchorage, and pulled. Ford also recommended using a fixture that
[[Page 10805]]
represents the geometry of a child restraint system. Ford recommended
using the ISO draft test procedure, which uses a fixture called a
``Static Force Application Device (SFAD).'' Ford believed that the ISO
fixture applies forces on the anchorages that are higher than the
forces applied to the fixture, because it applies realistic vertical
forces in addition to the horizontal forces. Ford suggested applying
force to the test fixture at 10 degrees above the horizontal (as in
Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, 49 CFR 571.210) to replicate
the effect of pre-impact braking and vehicle pitching during a crash.
NHTSA has evaluated the above comments regarding the proposed
procedure for testing the lower anchorage system. The agency agrees
with the commenters' suggestion that it should use a fixture for
testing the lower anchorages. The agency believes that the forces of a
crash are simultaneously applied to all anchorages and not to one
anchorage at a time. Because of this, it is the agency's belief that
using a fixture that represents a child restraint system better
simulates the conditions of a crash. However, the agency will not
attach a top tether anchorage when testing the lower anchorages. Not
attaching the tether anchorage is consistent with the draft test
procedure being developed by the ISO working group for the rigid bar
anchorage system. This is also consistent with the agency's objective
to ensure that the child restraint anchorage system will retain the
child restraint system in the event that the tether is misused or not
used at all.
This final rule adopts the SFAD test fixture specified in the draft
ISO standard for testing the strength of the rigid bars and adopts
aspects of the test procedure proposed in the NPRM. The SFAD engages
the vehicle's rigid bars with rigidly attached connectors replicating,
in placement and design, the connectors on a child restraint. The SFAD
is not connected to the tether anchorage. A reference point on the SFAD
(designated ``Point Y'' on the device) is used to determine compliance
with the strength requirements. When a test force is applied to the
rigid bars by pulling on the SFAD at a point that is approximately
midway from the top of the device, the child restraint anchorage system
shall not allow Point Y on this SFAD to be displaced more than 125 mm
(5 inches).27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ This final rule refers to the SFAD of the ISO draft
standard as ``SFAD 2.'' SFAD 2 is also used to test tether
anchorages at seating positions that are equipped with a full child
restraint anchorage system (i.e., with the rigid lower anchorage
bars and the tether anchorage). This final rule also refers to a
fixture, called ``SFAD 1'' in this rule, to test tether anchorages
at seating positions that do not have a full child restraint
anchorage system. SFAD 1 is attached by way of the tether anchorage
and the vehicle's seat belt system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters addressed the adequacy of the force levels
proposed to be applied to the anchorages. The NPRM proposed to require
that a 5,300 N (1,191 lb) force be maintained for 10 seconds. Gerry
Baby Products asked whether the 5,300 N static load is sufficiently
high to ensure adequate performance in a crash. Gerry said it has
measured dynamic loads in excess of 5,300 N. Indiana Mills and
Manufacturing Inc (IMMI) also commented that the proposed force of
5,300 N is lower than what they experienced in dynamic testing. The
Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales commented that in
designing tether anchorages, the Australian Design Rule requires that
the anchorages sustain a 3,400 N (764 lb) static load. It said,
however, that they record dynamic loads well above this in sled
testing.
NHTSA has determined that the strength requirements proposed in the
NPRM are generally high enough to ensure that the lower anchorage
system will be able to withstand the loads generated by a child in a
child restraint in a crash. This final rule specifies a forward load of
11,000 N, using a fixture that applies the load to both lower
anchorages simultaneously (and not to the tether
anchorage).28 The 11,000 N forward load is similar to the
10,600 N load that was proposed in the NPRM for testing the strength of
the lower anchorages (5,300 N applied to each lower anchorage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ This rule also includes a lateral load of 5,000 N (1,124
lb). The 5,000 N is the lateral load specified in the draft ISO
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 11,000 N forward load requirement is supported by test data
conducted by Transport Canada. Canada performed 48.3 km/h (30 mph)
dynamic testing of a 6-year-old (48 lb) child dummy in a (17 lb)
booster restraint that was attached to the vehicle seat assembly by the
rigid lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system. Dynamic loads
recorded at one lower bar was approximately 5,500 N, resulting in a
combined dynamic load of about 11,000 N. There is a margin of safety
incorporated into the adopted strength requirement by way of the method
by which the 11,000 N static load is applied to the anchorages, which
is discussed below with regard to the static load onset and hold
periods.
As to why NHTSA believes test data on the 6-year-old (48 lb) dummy
are pertinent, child restraints are increasingly marketed for children
of older ages and higher weights. Recent statements by several child
restraint manufacturers indicate that some of their child restraint
systems are currently being offered for sale for children weighing up
to, and in some cases more than, 60 lb. (A copy of these statements has
been placed in NHTSA Docket 74-09 General Reference.) These restraint
systems are primarily belt-positioning boosters, which are a type of
child restraint booster seat regulated by Standard 213.
While belt-positioning boosters use the vehicle's lap and shoulder
belts (Type II belts) to restrain the child, many belt-positioning
boosters are also designed for dual use as a toddler restraint. (A
toddler restraint is a forward-facing child restraint system, generally
recommended for children weighing 30 to 40 lb, that has its own
internal harness to restrain the child, and is dependent on the
vehicle's anchorage system to connect the child restraint to the
vehicle seat. The harness is designed to be removed by the consumer
when the child restraint is to be used with a vehicle's Type II belt as
a belt-positioning booster.) Under today's final rule, toddler
restraints must be designed to attach to the rigid bar anchorage system
of the vehicle. Toddler restraints restraining children weighing up to
40 lb will impose the forces generated by these children on the rigid
bars. In addition, in a misuse case, where a parent restrains a child
weighing more than 40 lb in a booster that is in the toddler restraint
mode, the loads could be higher. There is also substantial interest,
which NHTSA shares, in the possibility of designing toddler restraints
to accommodate children heavier than 40 lb. One tethered child
restraint is currently sold in Canada for use by children with a
maximum weight of 48 lb, and this trend may occur in the U.S.
29 Given that a child restraint anchorage system would be
used with children with weights up to and possibly more than 40 lb,
basing the strength requirement of the lower anchorages on forces
generated by the 6-year-old dummy best ensures that the anchorages will
be able to withstand the loads generated by a child in a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ NHTSA has granted a December 4, 1997 petition for
rulemaking from Kathleen Weber asking NHTSA to amend Standard 213 to
permit manufacturers to design booster seats with a top tether and
to attach the tether during compliance testing with a 48 lb dummy.
If adopted, the requested amendment would likely result in
manufacturers designing booster seats for children weighing up to
and possibly more than 45 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10806]]
The agency realizes that the 11,000 N static load requirement
results in a more severe load than the 11,000 N load generated in
Transport Canada's dynamic test. It is considered to be more severe
because this final rule adopts the specifications of the NPRM
concerning the periods for attaining and holding the required loads.
The NPRM proposed that the force be applied to each anchorage within 30
seconds, with an onset rate not exceeding 135,000 N per second, and
maintained for 10 seconds. While the 11,000 N static load may be more
demanding than a 11,000 N dynamic load in this instance, it ensures
that the child restraint anchorage system will perform adequately under
most crash conditions, with (as explained above) a wide range of
children. NHTSA is not aware of test data that justifies reducing the
margin of safety afforded by the 11,000 N static load requirement.
The agency also realizes that the 11,000 N static load requirement
of this final rule differs from the draft ISO standard, which specifies
a static load requirement of 8,000 N. NHTSA is unaware of the basis for
the 8,000 N requirement. There are no test data that NHTSA is aware of
that justify setting the requirement at 8,000 N.
With regard to the proposed force application and hold periods,
Ford commented that the periods are unrealistically long, and not
harmonized with European anchor test regulations and practices. Ford
believed that the European periods for attaining and holding the test
force would be more representative of real world crash situations.
Further, the commenter stated, the proposed force application period of
30 seconds reflects forty-year-old test equipment technology, whereas
current state-of-the-art test equipment can apply the test loads in
less than 1 second. Ford stated that it supports the load attainment
and hold specifications of the ISO draft standard, which specify a test
force application period of 2 seconds and hold period of 0.25 seconds.
The force attainment and hold requirements of today's final rule
for the lower anchorages are based on Standard 210 and the NPRM.
Standard 210 sets strength requirements for vehicle seat belt
anchorages. Because today's child restraint systems are secured to the
vehicle seat by way of the vehicle's seat belts, which are anchored to
the vehicle by the seat belt anchorages, Standard 210's strength
requirements establish the level of performance that the current
anchorage system for child restraint systems must meet.
The issue of whether Standard 210's force attainment and hold
requirements should be harmonized with European regulations has been
considered on several occasions by NHTSA. (See, e.g., 55 FR 17970,
April 30, 1990.) In deciding against such an action, the agency
acknowledged that the Standard 210 loading conditions are orders of
magnitude greater than the corresponding time periods observed in
crashes (total loading time for seat belts from about 0.10 to 0.15
seconds, load holding time less than 0.005 seconds). However, the
agency believed that the Standard 210 provisions are intended to be
sufficiently demanding to ensure that the anchorage will not fail even
under the most severe crash conditions. The agency decided against
reducing the ``margin of safety'' currently required for anchorage
strength by Standard 210.
Commenters have not raised new information that warrants changing
the established method for testing the vehicle anchorage system used to
secure child restraint systems or reducing the margin of safety
provided by the established method. Accordingly, the test force
application and hold requirements in the NPRM are adopted in this final
rule.
This final rule specifies how NHTSA will test multiple child
restraint anchorage systems installed on a vehicle seat. This rule
specifies that, in the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with
more than one child restraint anchorage system, at the agency's option,
each child restraint anchorage system may be tested simultaneously or
sequentially. Simultaneous testing is to ensure that the anchorage
systems will be strong enough to withstand the forces generated on them
in the event all are in use at the time of the crash. Sequential
testing may, at the agency's option, include testing one system to the
forward load requirement and testing another system to the lateral load
requirement. Such testing reduces the number of test vehicles that
NHTSA will need to acquire for its compliance program and enables the
agency to better manage its available resources. However, this rule
also specifies that a particular child restraint anchorage system need
not meet further requirements after having met either the forward load
or either lateral pull requirement, tested to any of these requirements
at the agency's option. The agency believes that in a real world crash,
the anchorage system is not likely to be exposed to the magnitudes of
both directional loads. Yet, because the anchorage system is subject to
either the forward or lateral loads in a compliance test, manufacturers
have to design and manufacture the system such that it will meet both
performance criteria.
With regard to adjustment of a vehicle seat in the compliance test,
adjustable seats are placed in their full rearward and full downward
position and the seat back in its most upright position. These
adjustment positions are the same ones specified in the NPRM and
adopted by this final rule for testing tether anchorages, which had
been based on the adjustment positions specified by Transport Canada in
its final regulation on user-ready tether anchorages. NHTSA has
considered requiring that adjustable seats be adjusted in any
horizontal or vertical position, any seat back angle position and any
head restraint adjustment position, to be able to test seats in all
possible positions that consumers may use them in the vehicle. The
agency did not adopt such a requirement out of concerns about the
adequacy of notice for such a requirement. However, NHTSA believes that
testing in all adjustment positions may be worthwhile and may propose
to adopt such a requirement in the future.
Several commenters suggested that the seat back of the standard
seat assembly used in compliance tests of child restraints be fixed
instead of flexible. This issue was addressed in a previous action (see
59 FR 12225, March 16, 1994). NHTSA determined that a flexible seat
back does not lessen the stringency of the compliance test, as
concerned parties had believed. No new information is available to
warrant the agency's reconsideration of this issue at this time.
j. Requirements for Child Restraints
In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require all child restraints,
other than belt-positioning seats, be equipped with components that are
compatible with the proposed standardized, independent anchorages for
motor vehicles. The agency did not propose to include belt-positioning
seats. They do not have compatibility problems because they use a
vehicle's lap and shoulder (Type II) belt system to restrain the child
occupant. Commenters did not urge their inclusion. NHTSA reiterates,
however, that if a child restraint system is designed for use both as a
belt-positioning seat and as a toddler seat (e.g., with its own
internal harness), the restraint system is required to have attachments
connecting to a child restraint anchorage system.
Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to
infant-only restraints with detachable bases. Graco requested
confirmation that only the base would be required to have the
permanently attached components. Ms. Weber of the UMCPP believed that
two-piece infant restraints should be
[[Page 10807]]
required to have the attachment hardware on both pieces to avoid the
possibility of being unable to attach the infant seat/carrier by means
of the standardized, independent anchorage system when the seat/carrier
is used by itself (i.e., without the base). NHTSA believes that only
the base of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases need
have the permanently attached components. To keep cost impacts of the
rule as low as possible, the agency is not requiring both pieces to
have the components.
This rule also excludes harnesses from the requirement. Harnesses
are excluded out of concerns about practicability. Not enough is known
as to whether connectors attaching to the rigid bars can be attached to
a harness. These child restraints may not have a structural member that
is strong enough to which the connectors may be attached.
The NPRM would have required each child restraint to have
components that securely fasten the child restraint to the flexible
latchplates. The NPRM specified that if a child restraint were also
designed to attach to the rigid bars, the child restraint had to use a
specific design for the connector. The connector was based on a jaw-
like clamp referenced in the ISO draft standard.
Commenters urged NHTSA not to specify the design of the connector
that child restraints had to use. As explained above in section
VII.d.2., child restraint manufacturers said that hooks, buckles or
other types of connectors could and would be used to attach to the 6 mm
bar anchorages. As also explained in section VII.d.2., the agency views
the design flexibility of the rigid bar anchorage system to be an
advantage over any other system and is thus not requiring a specific
connector on the child restraint to attach to the vehicle's rigid bars.
This final rule includes a requirement that the child restraints,
other than those using hooks to attach to the lower anchorages of a
child restraint anchorage system, must provide a visual or audible
indication that the two attachments to the rigid bars are fully
latched. The visual indication must be detectable under normal daylight
lighting conditions. A visual indicator was suggested by the ISO
working group in draft standard ISO/DIS 13216-1 and by Transport Canada
in NHTSA's October 1996 public meeting. A positive indicator was also
favorably received by the participants in the April 1998 AAMA/AIAM
consumer clinic. The participants (90 percent) stated that the
``clicking sound'' and ``green indicators'' made them confident that
the child restraint was securely installed.
k. Performance and Testing Requirements for Tether Anchorages
Overall, commenters strongly supported the proposed requirement for
providing user-ready top tether anchorages in vehicles. Commenters
strongly supported NHTSA's effort to harmonize its user-ready tether
anchorage requirements with what was then a Canadian proposal for
upgrading that country's tether anchorage requirement by requiring
user-ready tether anchorages. (That proposal has since been adopted by
Canada in revised form.)
Most of the vehicle manufacturers raised issues concerning the
proposed test procedure evaluating the strength of the user-ready
anchorage. The agency proposed that the user-ready tether anchorages
would be tested by attaching a strap to the anchorage that passed over
the seat back. This is the test procedure currently required by
Transport Canada for testing non-user-ready tether anchorages (i.e.,
the reinforced anchorage hole) in passenger cars. It was also the
procedure proposed by Transport Canada to test user-ready anchorages in
vehicles. However, when load was applied by the strap, manufacturers
found that the seat back on some MPVs and trucks deformed extensively
due to the location of the tether anchorage on the floor or on the seat
itself. Transport Canada explains in its Regulatory Impact Analysis
Statement for the September 30, 1998 final regulation publication:
While [the strap-based test method] is acceptable for passenger
cars, whose tether anchorages are located in the shelf behind the
second row of seats, it can cause extensive deformation of the seat
back for hatchbacks, MPVs, and trucks, whose anchorages are usually
located on the floor or on the seat itself. The seat back
deformation changes the direction of the load, which renders the
test inaccurate as a simulation of the forces that act on tether
anchorages in actual collisions.
Many vehicle manufacturers commenting on NHTSA's NPRM suggested
that the test procedure be changed to use a test fixture that would
direct the loads without interference with the seat back. Chrysler
suggested directing the force over a round bar instead of directly
going over the top of the seat back. All of these commenters made the
same suggestions to Transport Canada on its proposed rule.
NHTSA has determined that the proposed procedure did in fact result
in seat back deformations that interfered with the evaluation of the
strength of the tether. The straight-pull force application proposed in
the NPRM directs the force in a line of action that interferes with the
top of the vehicle seat. Transport Canada has made the same
determination.
In response to the comments it received, Canada made extensive
changes in its final regulation. Canada consulted with manufacturers on
the testing problems that occurred due to the use of a strap and
conducted substantial testing to evaluate and address the problems.
Transport Canada solved the problem by using, among other things, a
test fixture to direct the test loads. The test fixture replicates the
geometry of a child restraint system. Canada determined that the load
could be applied to the tether anchorage by way of a fixture, without
deforming the vehicle's seat back.
Two different fixtures are specified in the Canadian regulation. A
fixture, developed by GM, is used to test a tether anchorage at a
seating position that does not have the rigid bar anchorage system. The
fixture developed by WG1 (``SFAD 2,'' see section VII.i., above), is
used to test a tether anchorage at a seating position that has a rigid
bar anchorage system. Incorporation of the ISO SFAD by Canada reflects
that country's intent to undertake rulemaking to require the rigid bar
child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. Under the Canadian
regulation, the appropriate fixture is attached to the tether anchorage
by a tether strap and attached to the vehicle seat by the rigid bars or
the vehicle seat belts. A test force of 10,000 N (2,248 lb) is applied
to the fixture, which in turn distributes loads to the tether and lower
anchorages. The Canadian regulation requires the tether anchorage to
``withstand'' the requisite load.
NHTSA has incorporated use of the fixtures into its test procedure.
The fixture that will be used to test a tether anchorage at a seating
position that does not have the rigid bar anchorage system is referred
to as ``SFAD 1.'' The lower portion of SFAD 1 is attached to the
vehicle seat by way of the vehicle's seat belts. The fixture that will
be used to test a tether anchorage at a seating position that has a
rigid bar anchorage system is referred to as ``SFAD 2'' (see also
section VII.i., above, which describes use of SFAD 2 to test the rigid
bars of a child restraint anchorage system). NHTSA has determined that
the test fixtures are sufficiently representative of child restraint
systems sold in this country. The fixtures distribute the forces
generated in a crash in a manner similar to the distribution of forces
by child restraints observed in dynamic crash testing. NHTSA has
[[Page 10808]]
based this conclusion on data from tests performed by Canada with the
two fixtures. (A copy of the data has been placed in the docket.)
Both SFADs specified in this final rule have a tether strap that
attaches to the vehicle's tether anchorage. The tether strap consists
of webbing that must meet the breaking strength and elongation limits
for lap belt (Type I) assemblies, specified in Standard 209, ``Seat
Belt Assemblies'' (49 CFR 571.209). Type I belts are required to meet
higher performance requirements for braking strength and elongation
than other types of seat belts. The agency has used the requirements
for Type I belts because NHTSA believes that the webbing used for the
tether strap must be strong enough to transmit the loads to the tether
anchorage in a compliance test.
The proposal would have required the same strength requirements
that Canada applies now to (non-user ready) reinforced holes for tether
anchorages, i.e., a 5,300 N (1,124 lb) force, attained within 30
seconds and held at the 5,300 N level for one second. This final rule
has increased this to 15,000 N to reflect the use of the fixture in
testing tether anchorages. In addition, the agency has determined that
the 15,000 N force level is high enough to ensure that the anchorage
will withstand the loads generated by children in forward-facing
restraints.
This determination is based on test data from Transport Canada.
Canada conducted 30 mph dynamic tests of a CANFIX prototype child
restraint (weighing 32 lb) using a 3-year-old (33 lb) dummy and found
dynamic loads of about 3,500 N and 4,000 N on the tether anchorage
(loads on the lower attachments ranged from 3,000 N to 4,000 N). It
also dynamically tested a 3-year-old dummy in a child restraint
attached to the vehicle seat assembly by way of a lap belt and tether,
and found a dynamic load of about 5,800 N on the tether anchorage
(loads on the belt anchorages were about 1,500 N). Transport Canada
determined that a static test pull force value of 14,000 N (applied to
three anchorage points by way of a fixture) replicates the dynamic test
forces that was imposed on the lower anchorages in the CANFIX test.
(These data from the Canadian tests have been placed in the docket.)
NHTSA realizes that the data was based on tests with a 3-year-old (33
lb) dummy and that children heavier than 33 lb might be in a tethered
child restraint. However, the CANFIX prototype restraint used in the
Canadian tests weighed 32 lb, which is heavier than child restraints
likely to be produced for the rigid bar attachment system. (The child
restraint that Britax has produced weighs 17 lb.) Thus, NHTSA believes
that the data generated in the Canadian tests represent loads that
would be generated by children heavier than 33 lb, restrained in
tethered child restraints weighing substantially less than 32 lb. NHTSA
believes that the 15,000 N load requirement adopted in this rule will
ensure that tether anchorages perform acceptably in a crash for the
range of children likely to use the tether, with an acceptable margin
of safety.
The force attainment and hold requirements for testing the lower
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system are adopted, as
proposed. NHTSA recognizes that the one second hold period contrasts
with the agency's 10-second hold period specified in this final rule
for the lower anchorages. Unlike the situation for the lower
anchorages, there is no tether anchorage requirement in the U.S., so
there is no ``reduction'' of an established safety level (unlike the
situation vis-a-vis the lower anchorages and Standard 210). Further, a
higher margin of safety for the lower anchorages is needed because
these anchorages would bear all the crash forces in case of misuse (or
nonuse) of the tether attachment.
This rule specifies the manner in which NHTSA will test multiple
tether anchorages on a vehicle seat. In the case of a row of designated
seating positions that has more than one tether anchorage, the test
force may, at the agency's option, be applied simultaneously to each
tether anchorage. This is to ensure that the tether anchorages will be
strong enough to withstand the forces generated on them in the event
all are in use at the time of the crash. This rule also specifies,
however, that a particular tether anchorage (test specimen) need not
meet further requirements in a compliance test if that particular
tether anchorage is part of a child restraint anchorage system and the
lower anchorages of the system were previously tested to and met this
standard's requirements for the strength of the lower bars (S9.4 of 49
CFR 571.225). The agency believes that the lower bars may have been
sufficiently weakened in the earlier compliance test that they may fail
when tested again. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Transport Canada has also determined that manufacturers of
passenger cars should be permitted the option of testing tether
anchorages by way of a strap passing over the seat back, until
September 1, 2004. This is because existing lines of passenger cars
have been certified as meeting Canada's current tether anchorage
(hole) requirement using the strap method. NHTSA is also permitting
this option to avoid imposing a need on manufacturers to retest
their vehicles using the new test method. However, NHTSA notes that,
where a safety standard provides manufacturers more than one
compliance option, the agency needs to know which option has been
selected in order to conduct a compliance test. Moreover, based on
previous experience with enforcing standards that include compliance
options, the agency is aware that a manufacturer confronted with an
apparent noncompliance for the option it has selected (based on a
compliance test) may respond by arguing that its vehicles comply
with a different option for which the agency has not conducted a
compliance test. This response creates obvious difficulties for the
agency in managing its available resources for carrying out its
enforcement responsibilities, e.g., the possible need to conduct
multiple compliance tests for first one compliance option, then
another, to determine whether there is a noncompliance. To address
this problem, the agency is requiring that where manufacturer
options are specified, the manufacturer must select the option by
the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a
different option for the vehicle. This will mean that failure to
comply with the selected option will constitute a noncompliance with
the standard regardless of whether a vehicle complies with another
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule also adopts Canada's provisions specifying where
the tether anchorage must be located. Based on tests performed by
Transport Canada child restraints tethered near the limit of the
location zones performed very well. (A copy of the data has been placed
in the docket.) Australia's Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) and
RTA commented that the proposed zone, which was harmonized with
Canada's zone, allows more leeway in the lateral placement of the
tether anchor fittings than the Australian standard. It said some
vehicles that meet the Canadian standard were displaced laterally more
than 110 mm (4.3 inches) from the reference plane. NHTSA has reviewed
the Canadian and FORS zones and believes that the Australian
requirements specifies a zone that may be narrower than needed for the
tether anchorage. Transport Canada performed 48.3 km/h (30 mph) dynamic
tests with varying angles of the tether strap. In those tests, head
excursion, acceleration and tether loads were measured. The results of
the tests showed that these measurements were unaffected by the
anchorage location.
GM stated that the proposed Figure 4 requirement eliminates a small
area from the zone currently allowed in the Canadian standard. This
results in a few models of passenger cars having anchorages located
within the current Canadian standard zone, but not in the proposed
zone. GM included a corrected view requirement in its comment. Canada
has also determined that a number of MPV models already position tether
anchorages in the zone that is currently specified for passenger cars.
Canada has agreed to revise the proposed zone to avoid unnecessary
redesign of the affected vehicles. Similar to Canada's final
regulation, this final
[[Page 10809]]
rule permits manufacturers of passenger cars and MPVs to locate the
user-ready tether anchorage in the existing zone until September 1,
2004, when changes to the previous vehicle designs can be implemented
with little or no cost.
A number of commenters pointed out that, while the NPRM proposed a
requirement that vehicle manufacturers must equip vehicles with an
anchorage that permits the attachment of a tether hook meeting the
configuration and geometry specified in a proposed Figure 11 that was
to have been incorporated into Standard 213 (49 CFR Sec. 571.213), that
proposed figure did not sufficiently specify dimensions for the hook to
ensure that the anchorage will fit it. GM, Ford, Gerry, IMMI and
Millennium commented that the proposal did not limit the length on the
point of the hook or on the protrusion of the hook above the base.
Thus, vehicle manufacturers could not be assured that hooks could be
attached to some tether anchorages. The commenters suggested using
Australia's specifications for the tether strap hook. NHTSA agrees that
the specifications are reasonable and appropriate, and has reflected
the dimensions in Figure 11. NHTSA has also harmonized with Transport
Canada on this issue.
The NPRM proposed that the tether anchorage would have to be
``easily accessible'' to the user. Ford suggested that an objective
specification of the required access is needed, especially if the
anchorage were covered, e.g., by a plastic snap-off cover or a trim
panel with a perforated section. The commenter said it recommends
removing trim covers with a screwdriver or coin, and suggested
specifying that ``anchors should be accessible and usable without the
need for any tools other than a knife, screwdriver or coin.'' The
agency agrees that the suggested language would clarify the ``easily
accessible'' requirement and has reflected it in the standard. However,
reference to use of a knife has not been incorporated, because a knife
might entail more work to access the anchorage than the agency believes
is appropriate.
Advocates and Porsche expressed concern about head restraints.
Advocates stated that manufacturers may not provide head restraints
where a tether is required or consumers may misuse the tether strap
routing to go around instead of over the top of the head restraint.
Porsche addressed this issue in the front seat where, in some vehicles,
the head restraint is integrated with the seat. NHTSA agrees that
compatibility problems between the tether and rear seat head rests
could occur in some situations. However, the agency does not believe
that this is an unsurmountable design problem. ``Y'' shaped tether
strap designs that encircle the head restraint might be used. Further,
currently all vehicles sold in Canada and Australia effectively
accommodate top tether anchorages. Head restraints have been
accommodated in those vehicles for years. Finally, by requiring the use
of a fixture for testing tether strength, manufacturers will be able to
identify and correct for potential compatibility problems between the
tether system and head restraints.
GM and Mitsubishi suggested that convertibles should be excluded
from the tether anchorage requirement. These commenters noted that
practicability concerns have resulted in that type of vehicle being
excluded from Canadian requirements for tether anchorages. GM stated
that because convertibles have folding roofs, a stowage area behind the
seat back for the top and its mechanism, and less rear seat space,
there are technical problems involved in installing tether anchorages
in these vehicles. NHTSA agrees that many convertibles may have design
problems. Since those convertibles with these problems cannot be
readily separated from those without those problems using a definition
based on physical attributes, the agency has excluded all convertibles
from the tether anchorage requirement.
School buses are also excluded because of the conflicting functions
of the tether and of the energy-absorbing and compartmentalized school
bus seats. The seat backs of school buses are specially made to deform
to control crash forces as part of the compartmentalization concept for
school bus passenger protection (see 49 CFR 571.222). If the tether
anchorage were on the seat, the seat would deform, as designed, before
requisite tether anchorage loads could be reached in a test. The agency
believes that it would not be feasible to place the tether anchorage on
the bus ceiling. Since the appropriate location on the ceiling would be
well to the rear of the seating position, that location may be out of
range of a typical tether strap. Also, a tether strap anchored to the
roof poses a risk of injury to the child seated behind the tethered
child restraint. A tether strap anchored to the floor of the bus may
interfere with emergency egress of passengers from the seats
immediately rearward of the tethered child restraint. For these
reasons, NHTSA is excluding school buses from the tether anchorage
requirements.
Commenters strongly supported the proposed requirement to increase
the stringency of the head excursion test requirements in Standard 213
to the extent that it would have the effect of requiring a top tether
on most forward-facing restraints. Concerning the issue of what child
restraints are required to be equipped with an upper tether, Graco
Children's Products (Graco), the University of Michigan Child Passenger
Protection Research Program (UM-UPP) and Hartley Associates (Hartley)
asked whether tethers would be mandated for rear-facing restraints and
car beds. Graco believed that benefits have not been determined in
rear-facing configurations and that having a tether on these restraints
may invite misuse.
By addressing the need for a top tether by increasing the
stringency of the head excursion performance requirement, the agency
has effectively limited the need for an upper tether requirement to
forward-facing child restraint systems. Canada does not require a
tether for rear-facing child restraints, but Australia does. NHTSA
believes that the benefit of an upper tether would accrue primarily to
occupants of forward-facing child restraints because the tether is
especially effective at reducing head excursion and the potential for
head impacts. The primary benefits to occupants of rear-facing child
restraints would be to reduce rearward tipping of the restraint, which
do not involve high velocity head strikes. With respect to backless
booster seats, the agency agrees with commenters that practicability
concerns associated with this rule could lead some manufacturers to
cease producing these boosters. The agency is therefore excluding
backless booster seats from the requirement.
On the definition of a tether strap, Gerry, Evenflo and Century
Millennium Development Corporation (Millennium) requested that NHTSA
change the definition to be more specific about where the strap
attaches to the child restraint. NHTSA agrees to the requested change
and has specified in the definition of tether strap that it is a device
that is secured to the rigid structure of the ``seat back'' of a child
restraint system.
Ford stated that tether straps that are high-mounted are more
effective than ones that are low-mounted. Transport Canada tested high-
and low-mounted tether straps and found some but not a substantial
amount of difference in performance. (A copy of a report of this
testing has been placed in the docket.) Accordingly, NHTSA is not
specifying where the point of attachment of the tether is to be on the
child restraint, but
[[Page 10810]]
urges manufacturers to further evaluate the issue in designing the
tether.
Commenters addressed the issue of the length of the tether strap,
especially in cases of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks that
may require long straps to reach an anchorage at the bottom of a
vehicle seat or at the floor pan. Manufacturers believed that a minimum
length is necessary. Specifically, Gerry stated that based on a survey
of available tether hardware, a minimum allowance for tether length of
216 mm (8.5 inches) should be required. NHTSA agrees that child
restraint manufacturers should provide tethers of sufficient length to
enable consumers to attach a child restraint to a tether anchor that is
not within close proximity of the top of the back of the child
restraint. The agency, however, is concerned that a long tether strap
may result in some consumers not willing to take the time to tighten
the excess webbing, which is essential for accruing the benefit of the
tether. At this time, the agency does not believe that specifying a 216
mm (8.5 inches) minimum strap length is needed. The agency is not aware
of problems with tether straps for child restraints sold in Canada. The
agency will decide whether to initiate rulemaking in the future on this
matter if it becomes a problem.
l. Leadtime and Phasing-in the Requirements
1. Tether Anchorage and Tether Strap
The NPRM proposed that the requirements that vehicles provide user-
ready tether anchorages and that child restraints meet the new
excursion limit (if necessary by means of a top tether) be made
effective at a much earlier date than the requirement for the lower
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system. The agency explained
that passenger cars generally are already equipped with a reinforced
tether anchor hole (Canada has required a tether anchorage hole in
passenger cars since 1989), so it appeared that a user-ready tether
anchorage, complete with all the hardware needed for the consumer to
attach a tether hook to the vehicle's tether anchorage, can be provided
in the near future.
Canada had proposed an effective date of September 1, 1999 for its
user-ready tether anchorage requirement for passenger cars. NHTSA
proposed that the effective date for its user-ready tether anchorage
requirement for passenger cars be the same as that of the Canadian
proposal.
For user-ready tether anchorages on LTVs, NHTSA proposed a
September 1, 2000 effective date for its requirement that user-ready
anchorages be provided. The agency proposed that date based on Canada's
then-proposal that its tether anchorage (hole) requirement be effective
September 1, 1999, and its tether hardware requirement effective a year
later. (MPVs have not been subject to the Canadian requirement that an
anchorage hole be provided. That requirement has only applied to
passenger cars in Canada.)
Since NHTSA's NPRM, Canada adopted an effective date of September
1, 1999 for its user-ready tether anchorage requirement for passenger
cars, and an effective date of September 1, 2000 for a user-ready
anchorage requirement for LTVs.
All but one vehicle manufacturer supported the proposed effective
date. Most noted that the tether anchorage requirement could be made
effective much earlier than the requirement for the lower anchorages.
Ford said that it could provide tether anchorages in all of its
passenger cars by September 1, 1998. However, in July 1998, Volvo wrote
to NHTSA to inform the agency that Volvo is planning to introduce a car
(the Volvo S/V 40) into the United States for the 2000 model year (MY).
Volvo explained that the car does not have the reinforced tether
anchorage hole that all vehicles must have to be sold in Canada. (The
manufacturer only plans to sell the car in the U.S., and not sell it in
Canada.) The manufacturer said that it cannot install user-ready tether
anchorages by September 1, 1999 in these vehicles. Instead, Volvo
suggests that the effective date for the user-ready tether anchorage
requirement be two years from the date of the final rule, or be phased-
in such that after 1 year, 60 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles
would be required to be equipped with the user-ready tether anchorage
and the rest of the manufacturer's vehicles required to comply with the
requirement a year later.
NHTSA has decided to phase-in the user-ready tether anchorage
requirement for cars over a two-year period to provide Volvo time to
equip its S/V 40 model vehicles with the anchorages. However, the
agency does not agree with Volvo's suggestion that only 60 percent of a
manufacturer's vehicles should be required to meet the requirement in
the first year. Volvo did not provide any information showing that the
models will comprise 60 percent of Volvo's vehicles.
In addition, NHTSA believes that the 60 percent figure the
manufacturer requested is too low because one of the model types of the
S/V 40 is a sedan. NHTSA believes that a user-ready tether anchorage is
not difficult to install in a sedan. The reinforced tether anchorage
hole can be drilled into structure behind the rear seat, such as that
on or around the package shelf. The agency believes that Volvo can
expedite installation of the user-ready tether anchorage in at least
the sedan versions of the model to meet a September 1, 1999 effective
date. Accordingly, this final rule specifies that beginning September
1, 1999, 80 percent of a manufacturer's passenger cars would be
required to be equipped with the user-ready tether anchorages and the
rest of the vehicles required to comply with the requirement a year
later. The tether anchorage requirements for LTVs become effective
September 1, 2000.
With regard to child restraints, NHTSA said that some child
restraint manufacturers have a Canadian variant of most, if not all, of
their forward-facing models, such that child restraints manufactured in
the U.S. and sold in Canada already are equipped with a tether to meet
Canadian requirements. NHTSA believed that most U.S. manufacturers
produce child restraints for sale in Canada. NHTSA proposed an
effective date of September 1, 1999 for its proposal to effectively
require tethers by increasing the stringency of Standard 213's head
excursion requirement. Child restraint manufacturers did not object to
the proposed effective date for the more stringent head excursion
requirement (which indirectly requires a tether for most child
restraint systems). Thus, the proposed effective date of September 1,
1999 is adopted.
2. Lower Anchorage Bars and Means for Attaching Child Restraints to
Those Bars
The agency noted in the NPRM that the petitioners for the flexible
latchplate system did not explain why they believed that a phase-in is
needed for the lower anchorage requirement, or why more than four years
would be needed to implement it. The agency said in the NPRM that it
wanted to improve compatibility of child restraints and motor vehicles
as promptly as possible. To that end, NHTSA requested comments on the
feasibility of the manufacturers achieving full implementation (100
percent of affected vehicles) in a shorter period, e.g., two years
after the publication of a final rule.
Vehicle manufacturers overwhelmingly commented that a phase-in is
needed because the standard would require substantial redesign of
vehicle seats and supporting structure. Ford explained that a phase-in
is needed because there are no attachment points suitably located in
existing vehicles. Ford stated that manufacturers
[[Page 10811]]
will typically need to modify the floor pans and the stamping and
welding tools used in the production of floor pans, which the commenter
stated are changes needing long leadtimes. Ford said that if a final
rule were issued that in the summer of 1997, it could meet the phase-in
requirements for the first two model years (10 percent in MY 1999, 30
percent in MY 2000) and install child restraint system anchorages in a
substantially higher percentage of its vehicles during the third model
year (MY 2001) than the 50 percent proposed in the June 1996 petition.
Ford expected to install child restraint system anchorages in most
vehicles, particularly family vehicles, by September 1, 2000 (i.e.,
three years after issuance of the final rule) in response to market
forces. Ford said that the final year of a four year phase-in is needed
to fit anchorages into low volume vehicles. Volkswagen stated that the
rigid bar anchorage system is already provided as standard equipment in
Europe on all 1998 model Golf vehicles. VW also said that the rigid
bars will likely be in practically all other Volkswagen and Audi models
by the 1999 model year.
NHTSA is persuaded that because vehicles will require modifications
to floor pan stamping and to floor pan welding tools, and because those
changes are long leadtime changes, establishing a phase-in will ensure
that the child restraint anchorage systems are introduced as soon as
possible. A phase-in will also provide manufacturers needed time to
redesign and produce vehicles in a cost efficient manner. A four-year
leadtime generally corresponds to manufacturing cycles introducing new
vehicles or significantly modifying existing models. Yet, because
compatibility should improved as soon as possible, the agency believes
the four year cycle should be condensed into three years. Comments from
Ford and VW indicate that full implementation of the requirement could
be achieved within three years. Today's rule adopts a three year phase-
in period for the lower vehicle anchorages, which will begin on
September 1, 2000. The phase-in schedule for providing the lower
anchorage systems is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
each
manufacturer's
fleet that
needs to have
Period of manufacture lower
anchorage
systems for
child
restraints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From September 1, 2000 to August 31, 2001............... 20
From September 1, 2001 to August 31, 2002............... 50
On or after September 1, 2002........................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has decided to allow manufacturers of vehicles manufactured
in two or more stages to delay compliance until the final year of the
phase-in. Because final stage manufacturers and alterers have no
control over the year of the phase-in in which a particular vehicle
will be certified as complying with the new requirements, NHTSA is
allowing these manufacturers until the final year of the phase-in to
certify that their vehicles meet the new requirement.
Gerry Baby Products, Cosco and Mark Sedlack of the Millennium
Development Corporation urged against a phase-in for the requirement
that child restraint system be equipped with means of attaching to the
lower anchorage system on vehicles. These commenters stated that child
restraint manufacturers do not have as much control over the
distribution chain as vehicle manufacturers do. They argued that retail
stores will simply refuse to stock the limited numbers of child
restraints equipped with the attachments to the lower anchorage systems
because those restraints will be higher priced than child restraints
that do not have the attachments. The commenters also said that the
requirement for the attachments on child restraints should not become
effective before the requirement for the lower anchorage system is
phased into 100 percent of the vehicle fleet. Otherwise, these
commenters warn, consumers will be faced with a new set of attachment
hardware and probably no vehicle in which to use the system. This
situation was said to be likely to cause widespread confusion and
increased potential for misuse.
NHTSA concurs with these commenters that the requirement that child
restraint system be equipped with means of attaching to the lower
anchorage system should not be phased-in for child restraints. The
agency further agrees that the requirement should not become mandatory
until 100 percent of affected new vehicles are required to have the
lower anchorage system, which will be September 1, 2002. The rationale
for waiting until that date is to reduce the possibility of a parent
purchasing a new child restraint that has the new attachment hardware,
and having nowhere in his or her vehicle to use the improved hardware.
Nevertheless, NHTSA believes that market forces probably will encourage
child restraint manufacturers to install the attachments before that
date.
3. Requirement To Identify Vehicles Certified to the Vehicle
Requirements During the Phase-In
Where a safety standard provides manufacturers a phase-in period
for a requirement to take effect, the agency needs to know whether a
vehicle has been certified as meeting the standard when selecting
vehicles to test in NHTSA's compliance program. A phased-in requirement
typically includes a reporting requirement for manufacturers to
identify to NHTSA which vehicles have been certified to the standard,
but the report usually is made at the end of a model year. To enable
NHTSA to test vehicles during the production year, manufacturers have
to identify the vehicles during the production year that have been
certified as complying with the standard. In addition, for reasons
similar to those discussed in section VII.j with regard to compliance
options, the agency wants to avoid a situation where a manufacturer
confronted with an apparent noncompliance with a requirement may
respond by arguing that its vehicle was not part of the percentage of
its vehicles that was certified as complying with the requirement. This
response creates obvious difficulties for the agency in managing its
available resources for carrying out its enforcement responsibilities.
To enable NHTSA to test vehicles during the production year and to
better avoid the possible waste of agency resources, manufacturers have
to identify the vehicles during the production year that have been
certified as complying with the standard. This final rule includes a
requirement that at anytime during the production year, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from NHTSA, provide information
identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification
number) that have been certified as complying with the requirements for
tether anchorages or child restraint anchorage systems, as the case may
be. The manufacturer's identification of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle is irrevocable.
[[Page 10812]]
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures.
NHTSA has examined the impact of this rulemaking action and
determined that it is economically significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866 and significant within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
NHTSA has prepared a final economic assessment (FEA) for this final
rule which discusses issues relating to the estimated costs, benefits
and other impacts of this rulemaking.
A copy of this analysis has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking action. Interested persons may obtain copies of this
document by contacting the docket section at the address or phone
number provided at the beginning of this document.
The estimated average total cost of this rule is approximately $152
million annually. The cost of the rule for vehicles is estimated to be
about $85 million annually. The costs of the rule related to the
vehicle will range, per vehicle, from $2.82 (one rigid bar anchorage
system in front seat only) to $6.62 (for a system in front seat and one
in back seat or two systems in rear seats, plus a tether anchorage).
NHTSA estimates that 15 million vehicles will be affected annually: 9
million passenger cars and light trucks with ``adequate'' rear seats, 3
million vehicles with no rear seat, and 3 million vehicles that can
only accommodate forward-facing child restraints in the rear seat (not
a rear-facing infant seat).
The estimated annual cost of compliance to child restraint
manufacturers is $67 million. This estimate is based on 3.9 million
child restraints using webbing to attach the connector to the rigid
bars, which adds an average of $17.19 to each child restraint. NHTSA
believes that webbing is the material that is most likely to be chosen
by child restraint manufacturers to attach the connector. The actual
amount spent by child restraint manufacturers, however, will vary
depending on the type of connector used, e.g., a hook versus a buckle,
and the means used to attach the connector to the child restraint
system, e.g., webbing versus a rigid attachment. Some child restraint
manufacturers may produce restraints using less expensive equipment,
while other manufacturers may chose to use more expensive equipment
than is necessary to comply with the rule, resulting in an impact on
child restraint systems ranging from $9.62 per restraint to $43.92 per
restraint. NHTSA believes that $17.19 is approximately the maximum
additional amount that it will cost the child restraint manufacturer to
produce a restraint that is both marketable and complies with this
rule.
The benefits of the rule are estimated to be 36 to 50 lives saved
per year, and 1,231 to 2,929 injuries prevented. Based on the estimated
average total annual cost of $152 million, the cost per equivalent life
saved for this rule is estimated to be from $2.1 to $3.7 million.
NHTSA has considered the possible cost impacts of this rule on
child restraint use rates. As discussed in greater detail in the FEA
and in Appendix A to this final rule, the agency believes that the
demand for child restraint systems is highly inelastic. This conclusion
is supported by the fact that child restraints are considered a
necessity since their use is mandated by every State. Also, information
indicates that price is not the only criterion affecting sales. The
lowest priced child restraints do not have the highest sales volume.
Based on clinical trials, consumers have indicated that they are
willing to pay a higher price for improved attachment systems. In
addition, even if there were an adverse effect on the child restraint
market, especially the low end of that market, due to the $9.62 price
increase necessitated by this rule, the agency believes that hospitals
and loaner programs will be able to provide child restraints for
persons who want them but chose not to buy one because of the price
increase. Some hospitals and loaner programs believe that they will be
able to obtain enough funds to purchase the new child restraints
without any major change in the number of restraints they are able to
provide to the public.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires
agencies to prepare and make available for public comment a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of final
rules on small entities. NHTSA has included an FRFA in the FEA for this
rule.
Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of a FRFA. Each
FRFA must contain:
A description of the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered.
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the final rule.
A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the final rule will apply.
A description of the projected reporting, record keeping
and other compliance requirements of the final rule including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with
the final rule.
Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall also
contain a description of any significant alternatives to the final rule
which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small
entities.
The following discussion summarizes the FRFA.
1. Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
The FRFA explains that NHTSA has undertaken this rulemaking to
improve the compatibility of child restraints and vehicle safety belts
and increase the correct installation of child restraints. The correct
use of child restraints is important because of the number of children
killed and injured in vehicle accidents. Annually, about 600 children
less than five years of age are killed and over 70,000 are injured as
occupants in motor vehicle crashes.
While child restraints are highly effective in reducing the
likelihood of death or serious injury in motor vehicle crashes, the
degree of their effectiveness depends on how they are installed. This
final rule improves child restraint effectiveness by improving
compatibility through the establishment of an independent means of
securing child restraints.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Final Rule
The final rule is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 322,
30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
The objective of this rule is make child restraints easier to
install correctly. It requires that motor vehicles and add-on child
restraints be equipped with a means independent of vehicle safety belts
for securing child restraints to vehicle seats. This rule also reduces
[[Page 10813]]
allowable head excursion to effectively require child restraints to be
equipped with an upper tether strap. Attached tethers will result in
fewer head impacts in a crash.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Final Rule Will Apply
NHTSA believes that the final rule could have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would affect motor
vehicle manufacturers, almost all of which would not qualify as small
businesses, and portable child restraint manufacturers. NHTSA estimates
there to be about 10 manufacturers of portable child restraints, four
or five of which could be small businesses.
Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of
receiving Small Business Administration assistance. One of the criteria
for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.601, is the number of
employees in the firm. There is no separate SIC code for child
restraints, or even a category that they fit into well. However, there
are categories that could be appropriate. To qualify as a small
business in the Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories category (SIC
3714), the firm must have fewer than 750 employees. The agency has
considered the small business impacts of this rule based on this
criterion. On the other hand, to qualify as a small business in the
category including manufacturers of baby furniture, the firm must have
fewer than 500 employees. The NPRM requested comments on which Standard
Industrial Classification code would best represent child restraint
manufacturers, but no comment was received in response.
The FRFA discusses the possible impacts on small entities. As
discussed in the FRFA, the incremental cost increase of $9.62 and the
requirement to redesign child restraints could have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. NHTSA does
not know the specific elasticity of demand for child restraints, but
believes that it is highly inelastic. NHTSA believes that an increase
in the price of a child restraint of this magnitude will not lead to
any significant decrease in demand for the product.
According to information from Cosco (see Appendix A) the average
purchase price of a convertible car seat today is $63. About 25 percent
of the car seats purchased cost $50 or less; less than five percent
cost $100 or more. Cosco estimated that at least 10 percent of the
people would not be able to purchase a car seat if prices increased
significantly.
The NPRM requested comments on the effect that the price increase
resulting from this rule will have on small businesses that manufacture
child restraints. No comments were received on this issue.
4. Description of the Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The final rule sets new performance requirements that would enhance
the safety of child restraints. Child restraint manufacturers must
certify that their products comply with the requirements of the final
rule. The certification is made when certifying compliance to Standard
213, in accordance with the provisions set forth in S5.5.2(e) of the
standard. NHTSA has decided against a phase-in of the requirements for
child restraint manufacturers, so there are no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements associated with a phase-in, for those
manufacturers. There are no other reporting or record keeping
requirements in this final rule for child restraint manufacturers or
small businesses.
The final rule will result in new designs for child restraints and
an increase in the price of child restraints. An increase in child
restraint prices may also affect loaner and giveaway programs. While
such a program could have fewer seats available, comments submitted to
the NPRM indicate that if the new seats perform as projected, there
would be minor effect on the loaner programs.
5. Duplication With Other Federal Rules
There are no relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the final rule.
6. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Final Rule
NHTSA believes that there are no alternatives to the rule which
would accomplish the stated objectives of 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. and
which would minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on
small entities. As discussed above in section III.d., ``Summary of the
NPRM, Alternatives considered,'' NHTSA considered a number of other
approaches to improve the compatibility between child restraints and
vehicle seats. SAE Recommended Practice J1819, ``Securing Child
Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicle Rear Seats,'' is not sufficient
alone to achieve the desired level of compatibility. It is a tool for
evaluating compatibility, not a requirement that vehicle seats and
child restraints must be compatible. Further, it is very difficult for
a single system to optimize the safety protection for adults of all
ranges and child restraints of different types. The current
``lockability'' requirement is not sufficient alone for improving
compatibility, because it still depends on the user knowing enough and
making the effort to manipulate and correctly route the belt system.
Also, the lockability requirement does not address the effects of
forward-mounted seat belt anchorages on child restraint effectiveness.
Further, because the requirement still depends on the seat belt system
to restrain child restraints and the adult population, the lockability
approach makes it difficult for designs of the seat belt system to
optimize the system for adults, teenagers and older children.
An independent means of attaching child restraints will make
properly attaching child restraints easier, and will enable vehicle
manufacturers to optimize the design of vehicle belt systems for adult
occupants. As for alternative designs of independent child restraint
anchorage systems, as discussed in Appendix A, the ``Car Seat Only
(CSO)'' system suggested by Cosco would not make attaching a child
restraint significantly easier than it is today. The CSO belt would
have to be correctly routed through the child restraint, which is a
problem occurring with present seats, and appears hard to tighten.
Also, Cosco provided no information showing that the CSO belt would
improve the securement of a child restraint on contoured (especially
humped) seats. Another concern relates to the potential for inadvertent
use by an adult occupant. As for the flexible latchplate system as an
alternative, as discussed in section VII.d., NHTSA has determined that
the rigid bar system has advantages over the flexible latchplate system
with regard to international harmonization of safety standards, the
design flexibility of the systems, and possible safety benefits of the
rigid bar system that warrant its selection over the flexible
latchplate system.
c. Executive Order 12612
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the agency has
determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)
requires
[[Page 10814]]
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. NHTSA has included an evaluation in the FEA for
this final rule. The costs and benefits of the rule are discussed above
and throughout the FEA.
Participants in a NHTSA public meeting held in March 1995 at the
Lifesavers National Conference on Highway Safety Priorities, who
typically work in State highway traffic safety agencies, community
traffic safety programs and State or local law enforcement agencies,
expressed strong support for a requirement for an independent child
restraint anchorage system. Support for an independent child restraint
anchorage system was also expressed at NHTSA's October 1996 public
workshop on various types of anchorage systems.
As discussed above in sections III.d., VII, VIII.b., and in the
FEA, the agency does not believe that there are feasible alternatives
to the child restraint anchorage system adopted in this final rule. See
section VIII.b., above, for a summary of the agency's assessment of the
alternatives consisting of SAE Recommended Practice J1819, Standard
208's ``lockability'' requirement, Cosco's CSO system and the flexible
latchplate child restraint anchorage system. It should be noted that
the rigid bar anchorage system selected by this final rule is the most
cost effective of the alternative independent child restraint anchorage
systems that the agency evaluated in this regulatory action. This
anchorage system results in lower child restraint costs (as low as
$9.60 per restraint) than the flexible latchplate system ($11.96 per
restraint), and lower vehicle costs ($6.62 for two full anchorages
systems plus a third tether anchorage, compared to $8.74 for two full
flexible latchplate systems with a third tether anchorage). The vehicle
cost of the rigid bar anchorage system is lower than the vehicle costs
of the CSO system. (The retractor alone would cost $2.50 to $3.00 per
system, or $5 to $6 for two systems. Adding the cost of the belt and
anchorage would increase this cost well above the $6.62 for two full
rigid anchorages.)
e. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This final rule accords with the spirit of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113). Under the
Act, ``all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry
out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and
departments.'' This final rule uses the technical specifications set
forth in a draft international standard being developed by Technical
Committee 22 to the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), a worldwide voluntary federation of ISO member bodies. Using the
draft ISO standard is consistent with the Act's goals of eliminating
the agency's cost of developing its own standards, and encouraging
long-term growth for U.S. enterprises and promoting efficiency and
economic competition through harmonization of standards.
While NHTSA anticipates that the ISO will be adopting the draft
standard as an International Standard within the next year, NHTSA is
issuing this final rule at this date, prior to the ISO's completion of
work on the draft standard, in order to provide increased safety to
this country's children as quickly as possible. Further, the agency
anticipates that the ISO and the working group will not make
significant changes to the draft ISO standard. To the extent that the
final ISO standard differs from this final rule, the agency will
evaluate those differences to determine if changes to this final rule
appear warranted. In the event NHTSA tentatively determines that
changes may be warranted, the agency will commence a rulemaking
proceeding and make a decision as to the issuance of an amendment based
on all available information developed in the course of that
proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.
f. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
h. Paperwork Reduction Act
The phase-in production reporting requirements described in this
final rule are considered to be information collection requirements as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part
1320. The collection of information would require manufacturers of
passenger cars and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
GVWR or 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less to annually submit a report, and maintain records
related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles that meet
the user-ready tether anchorage and child restraint anchorage system
requirements of Standard 225 during the phase-in of those requirements.
The phase-in of the tether anchorage requirement will be completed in
one year, beginning September 1, 1999, and the phase-in of the rigid
bar lower anchorage requirements will be completed in three years,
beginning September 1, 2000. The purpose of the reporting requirements
is to aid the agency in determining whether a manufacturer of passenger
cars and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR or
3,855 kg (8,500 lb) or less, or buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) or less, has complied with the tether anchorage and child restraint
anchorage system requirements during the phase-in of those
requirements.
The first required report will pertain to the tether anchorage
phase-in requirements. Under today's final rule, the report will be due
within 60 days after the end of the production year ending August 31,
2000.
NHTSA will be submitting the information collection request to OMB
for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) in the near future. The
clearance for the information collection requirements of Standard 213,
``Child Restraint Systems,'' will expire in the year 2000 (OMB
Clearance No. 2127-0511). NHTSA anticipates submitting a request to OMB
to renew the clearance of that standard and at or near same time, will
be submitting an information collection
[[Page 10815]]
request to OMB for review and clearance of the phase-in reporting
requirements adopted today for Standard 225.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 CFR Part 596
Infants and children, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.208 is amended by revising the introductory text of
S7.1.1.5 and adding S7.1.1.5(d), to read as follows:
Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
* * * * *
S7.1.1.5 Passenger cars, and trucks, buses, and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on
or after September 1, 1995 shall meet the requirements of S7.1.1.5(a),
S7.1.1.5(b) and S7.1.1.5(c), subject to S7.1.1.5(d).
* * * * *
(d) For passenger cars, and trucks and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less, and buses with a GVWR of
10,000 lb or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2012, each
designated seating position that is equipped with a child restraint
anchorage system meeting the requirements of Sec. 571.225 need not meet
the requirements of this S7.1.1.5.
* * * * *
3. Section 571.213 is amended by:
a. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Child
restraint anchorage system,'' ``Tether anchorage,'' ``Tether strap,''
and ``Tether hook''';
b. Revising S5.1.3;
c. Revising S5.1.3.1, S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.6.1;
d. Adding S5.9;
e. Revising S6.1.1(a)(1), S6.1.1(c), and S6.1.2(a)(1);
f. Adding S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii); and
g. Revising Figure 1A and Figure 1B, and adding, in numerical
order, Figure 1A', Figure 1B' and Figure 11.
The revised and added paragraphs read as follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
Child restraint anchorage system is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225
(Sec. 571.225).
* * * * *
Tether anchorage is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec. 571.225).
Tether strap is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec. 571.225).
Tether hook is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 225 (Sec. 571.225).
* * * * *
S5.1.3 Occupant excursion. When tested in accordance with S6.1 and
the requirements specified in this section, each child restraint system
shall meet the applicable excursion limit requirements specified in
S5.1.3.1-S5.1.3.3.
S5.1.3.1 Child restraint systems other than rear-facing ones and
car beds. Each child restraint system, other than a rear-facing child
restraint system or a car bed, shall retain the test dummy's torso
within the system.
(a) For each add-on child restraint system:
(1) No portion of the test dummy's head shall pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 mm (as specified in the
table in this S5.1.3.1) forward of point Z on the standard seat
assembly, measured along the center SORL (as illustrated in figure 1B
of this standard); and
(2) Neither knee pivot point shall pass through a vertical
transverse plane that is 915 mm forward of point Z on the standard seat
assembly, measured along the center SORL.
Table to S5.1.3.1(a).--Add-On Forward-Facing Child Restraints
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanatory note: In
the test specified in
2nd column, the child
restraint is attached
When this type of child restraintis Is tested in accordance These excursion limits to the test seat
with-- apply assembly in the manner
described below,
subject to certain
conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses, backless booster seats S6.1.2(a)(1)(A)(i)..... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt;
with tethers, and restraints mm. in addition, if a
designed for use by physically tether is provided, it
handicapped children. is attached.
Belt-positioning seats............... S6.1.2(a)(1)(B)........ Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap and
mm. shoulder belt; no
tether is attached.
All other child restraints, S6.1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt;
manufactured before September 1, mm. no tether is attached.
1999.
All other child restraints, S6.1.2(a)(1)(A)(ii).... Head 813 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt;
manufactured on or after September mm. no tether is attached.
1, 1999.
S6.1.2(a)(1)(A)(iv) Attached to lower
(beginning September anchorages of child
1, 2002). restraint anchorage
system; no tether is
attached.
S6.1.2(a)(1)(A)(i)..... Head 720 mm; Knee 915 Attached with lap belt;
mm. in addition, if a
tether is provided, it
is attached.
S6.1.2(a)(1)(A)(iii) Attached to lower
(beginning September anchorages of child
1, 2002). restraint anchorage
system; in addition,
if a tether is
provided, it is
attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10816]]
(b) In the case of a built-in child restraint system, neither knee
pivot point shall, at any time during the dynamic test, pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 305 mm forward of the initial pre-
test position of the respective knee pivot point, measured along a
horizontal line that passes through the knee pivot point and is
parallel to the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the
vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
* * * * *
S5.3 Installation.
S5.3.1 Except for components designed to attach to a child
restraint anchorage system, each add-on child restraint system shall
not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat
cushion or vehicle seat back and any component (except belts) that is
designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle
seat back.
S5.3.2 Each add-on child restraint system shall be capable of
meeting the requirements of this standard when installed on the vehicle
seating assembly solely by each of the means indicated in the following
table for the particular type of child restraint system:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means of installation
-------------------------------------------------------
Type 1 seat Child
belt restraint
Type of add-on child restraint system Type 1 seat assembly anchorage Type II seat
belt plus a system belt
assembly tether (effective assembly
anchorage, September 1,
if needed 2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harnesses............................................... X
Car beds................................................ X
Rear-facing restraints.................................. X X
Belt-positioning seats.................................. X
All other child restraints.............................. X X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
S5.6.1 Add-on child restraint systems. Each add-on child restraint
system shall be accompanied by printed installation instructions in
English that provide a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for
installing the system in motor vehicles, securing the system in the
vehicles, positioning a child in the system, and adjusting the system
to fit the child. For each child restraint system that has components
for attaching to a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage
system, the installation instructions shall include a step-by-step
procedure, including diagrams, for properly attaching to that anchorage
or system.
* * * * *
S5.9 Attachment to child restraint anchorage system.
(a) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after
September 1, 2002, other than a car bed, harness and belt-positioning
seat, shall have components permanently attached to the system that
enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of
the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225
(Sec. 571.225) and depicted in Drawing Package 100-1000 with Addendum
A: Seat Base Weldment (consisting of drawings and a bill of materials)
dated October 23, 1998, (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5).
(b) In the case of each child restraint system that is manufactured
on or after September 1, 1999 and that has components for attaching the
system to a tether anchorage, those components shall include a tether
hook that conforms to the configuration and geometry specified in
Figure 11 of this standard.
(c) In the case of each child restraint system that is manufactured
on or after September 1, 1999 and that has components, including belt
webbing, for attaching the system to a tether anchorage or to a child
restraint anchorage system, the belt webbing shall be adjustable so
that the child restraint can be tightly attached to the vehicle.
(d) Each child restraint system, other than a system with hooks for
attaching to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage
system, shall provide either a clear audible indication when each
attachment to the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or attached,
or a clear visual indication that all attachments to the lower
anchorages are fully latched or attached. Visual indications shall be
detectable under normal daylight lighting conditions.
* * * * *
S6.1.1 Test conditions.
(a) Test devices.
(1) The test device for add-on restraint systems is a standard seat
assembly consisting of a simulated vehicle bench seat, with three
seating positions, which is described in Drawing Package SAS-100-1000
with Addendum A: Seat Base Weldment (consisting of drawings and a bill
of materials) dated October 23, 1998, (incorporated by reference; see
Sec. 571.5). The assembly is mounted on a dynamic test platform so that
the center SORL of the seat is parallel to the direction of the test
platform travel and so that movement between the base of the assembly
and the platform is prevented.
* * * * *
(c) As illustrated in Figures 1A and 1B of this standard, attached
to the seat belt anchorage points provided on the standard seat
assembly are Type 1 seat belt assemblies in the case of add-on child
restraint systems other than belt-positioning seats, or Type 2 seat
belt assemblies in the case of belt-positioning seats. These seat belt
assemblies meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (Sec. 571.209) and
have webbing with a width of not more than 2 inches, and are attached
to the anchorage points without the use of retractors or reels of any
kind. As illustrated in Figures 1A'' and 1B'' of this standard,
attached to the standard seat assembly is a child restraint anchorage
system conforming to the specifications of Standard No. 225
(Sec. 571.225), in the case of add-on child restraint systems other
than belt-positioning booster seats.
* * * * *
S6.1.2 Dynamic test procedure.
(a) * * *
(1) Test configuration I.
(i) Child restraints other than belt-positioning seats. Attach the
child restraint in any of the following manners specified in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D), unless otherwise specified in this
standard.
(A) Install the child restraint system at the center seating
position of the
[[Page 10817]]
standard seat assembly, in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that
the standard lap belt is used and, if provided, a tether strap may be
used.
(B) Except for a child harness, a backless child restraint system
with a tether strap, and a restraint designed for use by physically
handicapped children, install the child restraint system at the center
seating position of the standard seat assembly as in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A), except that no tether strap (or any other
supplemental device) is used.
(C) Install the child restraint system using the child restraint
anchorage system at the center seating position of the standard seat
assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided
with the system pursuant to S5.6.1. The tether strap, if one is
provided, is attached to the tether anchorage.
(D) Install the child restraint system using only the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system as in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C). No tether strap (or any other supplemental device)
is used.
(ii) Belt-positioning seats. A belt-positioning seat is attached to
either outboard seating position of the standard seat assembly in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the
system pursuant to S5.6.1 using only the standard vehicle lap and
shoulder belt and no tether (or any other supplemental device).
(iii) In the case of each built-in child restraint system, activate
the restraint in the specific vehicle shell or the specific vehicle, in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided in accordance
with S5.6.2.
* * * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) When attaching a child restraint system to the tether
anchorage and the child restraint anchorage system on the standard seat
assembly, tighten all belt systems used to attach the restraint to the
standard seat assembly to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not
more than 67 N, as measured by a load cell or other suitable means used
on the webbing portion of the belt.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 10818]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.000
[[Page 10819]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.001
[[Page 10820]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.002
[[Page 10821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.003
[[Page 10822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.004
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 10823]]
4. Section 571.225 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 571.225 Standard No. 225; Child restraint anchorage systems.
S1. Purpose and scope. This standard establishes requirements for
child restraint anchorage systems to ensure their proper location and
strength for the effective securing of child restraints, to reduce the
likelihood of the anchorage systems' failure, and to increase the
likelihood that child restraints are properly secured and thus more
fully achieve their potential effectiveness in motor vehicles.
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars; to trucks
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, except walk-in van-
type vehicles and vehicles manufactured to be sold exclusively to the
U.S. Postal Service; and to buses (including school buses) with a GVWR
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less.
S3. Definitions.
Child restraint anchorage means any vehicle component, other than
Type I or Type II seat belts, that is involved in transferring loads
generated by a child restraint system to the vehicle structure.
Child restraint anchorage system means a vehicle system that is
designed for attaching a child restraint system to a vehicle at a
particular designated seating position, consisting of:
(a) Two lower anchorages meeting the requirements of S9; and
(b) A tether anchorage meeting the requirements of S6.
Child restraint fixture (CRF) means the fixture depicted in Figures
1 and 2 of this standard that simulates the dimensions of a child
restraint system, and that is used to determine the space required by
the child restraint system and the location and accessibility of the
lower anchorages.
Rear designated seating position means any designated seating
position (as that term is defined at Sec. 571.3) that is rearward of
the front seats(s).
SFAD 1 means Static Force Application Device 1 shown in Figures 12
to 16 of this standard.
SFAD 2 means Static Force Application Device 2 shown in Figures 17
and 18 of this standard.
Tether anchorage means a user-ready, permanently installed vehicle
system that transfers loads from a tether strap through the tether hook
to the vehicle structure and that accepts a tether hook.
Tether strap means a strap that is secured to the rigid structure
of the seat back of a child restraint system, and is connected to a
tether hook that transfers the load from that system to the tether
anchorage.
Tether hook means a device, illustrated in Figure 11 of Standard
No. 213 (Sec. 571.213), used to attach a tether strap to a tether
anchorage.
S4. General vehicle requirements.
S4.1 Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage
system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in
any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall
comply with the configuration, location and strength requirements of
this standard. The vehicle shall have written information, in English,
on using those child restraint anchorages.
S4.2 For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1999
and before September 1, 2000, not less than 80 percent of the
manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles (not including
convertibles), as set forth in S13, shall be equipped with a tether
anchorage as specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of S4.2, except
as provided in S5.
(a) Each vehicle with three or more rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming to the
requirements of S6 at no fewer than three rear designated seating
positions. The tether anchorage of a child restraint anchorage system
may count towards the three required tether anchorages. In each vehicle
with a designated seating position other than an outboard designated
seating position, at least one tether anchorage (with or without the
lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system) shall be at
such a designated seating position. In a vehicle with three or more
rows of seating positions, at least one of the tether anchorages (with
or without the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system)
shall be installed at a seating position in the second row.
(b) Each vehicle with not more than two rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage at each rear
designated seating position. The tether anchorage of a child restraint
anchorage system may count toward the required tether anchorages.
(c) Each vehicle without any rear designated seating position shall
be equipped with a tether anchorage at each front passenger seating
position.
S4.3 Each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and
before September 1, 2002, shall be equipped as specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of S4.3, except as provided in S5.
(a) A specified percentage of each manufacturer's yearly
production, as set forth in S14, shall be equipped as follows:
(1) Each vehicle with three or more rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage system at
not fewer than two rear designated seating positions. In a vehicle with
three or more rows of seating positions, at least one of the child
restraint anchorage systems shall be at a seating position in the
second row.
(2) Each vehicle with not more than two rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage system at
each rear designated seating position.
(b) Each vehicle, including a vehicle that is counted toward the
percentage of a manufacturer's yearly production required to be
equipped with child restraint anchorage systems, shall be equipped as
described in S4.3(b)(1), (2) or (3).
(1) Each vehicle with three or more rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming to the
requirements of S6 at no fewer than three rear designated seating
positions. The tether anchorage of a child restraint anchorage system
may count towards the three required tether anchorages. In each vehicle
with a designated seating position other than an outboard designated
seating position, at least one tether anchorage (with or without the
lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system) shall be at
such a designated seating position. In a vehicle with three or more
rows of seating positions, at least one of the tether anchorages (with
or without the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system)
shall be installed at a seating position in the second row.
(2) Each vehicle with not more than two rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage at each rear
designated seating position. The tether anchorage of a child restraint
anchorage system may count toward the required tether anchorages.
(3) Each vehicle without any rear designated seating position shall
be equipped with a tether anchorage at each front passenger seating
position.
S4.4 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 shall be
equipped as specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of S4.4, except as
provided in S5.
(a) Each vehicle with three or more rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped as specified in S4.4(a)(1) and (2).
(1) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage
system at not fewer than two rear designated
[[Page 10824]]
seating positions. At least one of the child restraint anchorage
systems shall be installed at a seating position in the second row in
each vehicle that has three or more rows.
(2) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a tether anchorage
conforming to the requirements of S6 at a third rear designated seating
position. The tether anchorage of a child restraint anchorage system
may count towards the third required tether anchorage. In each vehicle
with a rear designated seating position other than an outboard
designated seating position, at least one tether anchorage (with or
without the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system)
shall be at such a designated seating position.
(b) Each vehicle with not more than two rear designated seating
positions shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage system at
each rear designated seating position.
(c) Each vehicle without any rear designated seating position shall
be equipped with a tether anchorage at each front passenger seating
position.
S5. General exceptions.
(a) Convertibles and school buses are excluded from the
requirements to be equipped with tether anchorages.
(b) A vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child restraint
system conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR
571.213) instead of one of the required tether anchorages or child
restraint anchorage systems.
(c)(1) Each vehicle that--
(i) Does not have a rear designated seating position and that thus
meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(a) of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208);
and
(ii) Has an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of
S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208, shall have a child restraint anchorage
system for a designated passenger seating position in the front seat,
instead of a tether anchorage that is required for a front passenger
seating position.
(2) Each vehicle that--
(i) Has a rear designated seating position and meets the conditions
in S4.5.4.1(a) of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208); and
(ii) Has an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of
S4.5.4 of Standard 208, shall have a child restraint anchorage system
for a designated passenger seating position in the front seat, instead
of a child restraint anchorage system that is required for the rear
seat.
(d) A vehicle that does not have an air bag on-off switch meeting
the requirements of S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208), shall
not have any child restraint anchorage system installed at a front
designated seating position.
S6. Requirements for tether anchorages.
S6.1 Configuration of the tether anchorage. Each tether anchorage
shall:
(a) Permit the attachment of a tether hook of a child restraint
system meeting the configuration and geometry specified in Figure 11 of
Standard No. 213 (Sec. 571.213);
(b) Be accessible without the need for any tools other than a
screwdriver or coin;
(c) Once accessed, be ready for use without the need for any tools;
and
(d) Be sealed to prevent the entry of exhaust fumes into the
passenger compartment.
S6.2 Location of the tether anchorage.
Subject to S6.2(a) and (b), the part of each tether anchorage that
attaches to a tether hook shall be located within the shaded zone shown
in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard of the designated seating position
for which it is installed, such that--
(a) The H-point of a three-dimensional H-point machine, that is
described in SAE Standard J826 (June 1992), (incorporation by
reference; see Sec. 571.5), and whose position relative to the shaded
zone is specified in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard, is located--
(1) At the actual H-point of the seat, as defined in section
2.2.11.3 of SAE Recommended Practice J1100 (June 1993), (incorporation
by reference; see Sec. 571.5), at the full rearward and downward
position of the seat; or
(2) In the case of a designated seating position that has a child
restraint anchorage system, midway between vertical longitudinal planes
passing through the lateral center of the bar in each of the two lower
anchorages of that system; and
(b) The back pan of the H-point machine is at the same angle from
the vertical as the vehicle seat back with the seat adjusted to its
full rearward and full downward position and the seat back in its most
upright position.
S6.2.1.1 In the case of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004, the part of each user-
ready tether anchorage that attaches to a tether hook may, at the
manufacturer's option (with said option selected prior to, or at the
time of, certification of the vehicle), instead of complying with
S6.2.1, be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 8 to 11 of
this standard of the designated seating position for which it is
installed, relative to the shoulder reference point of the three
dimensional H-point machine described in section 3.1 of SAE Standard
J826 (June 1992), (incorporation by reference; see Sec. 571.5), such
that--
(a) The H-point of the three dimensional H-point machine is
located--
(1) At the actual H-point of the seat, as defined in section
2.2.11.3 of SAE Recommended Practice J1100 (June 1993), (incorporation
by reference; see Sec. 571.5), at the full rearward and downward
position of the seat; or
(2) In the case of a designated seating position that has a child
restraint anchorage system, midway between vertical longitudinal planes
passing through the lateral center of the bar in each of the two lower
anchorages of that system; and
(b) The back pan of the H-point machine is at the same angle to the
vertical as the vehicle seat back with the seat adjusted to its full
rearward and full downward position and the seat back in its most
upright position.
S6.2.1.2 In the case of a vehicle that--
(a) Has a user-ready tether anchorage for which no part of the
shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard of the designated
seating position for which the anchorage is installed is accessible
without removing a seating component of the vehicle; and
(b) Has a tether strap routing device that is--
(1) Not less than 65 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a flexible routing device or a deployable
routing device, measured horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal
plane; or
(2) Not less than 100 mm behind the torso line for that seating
position, in the case of a fixed rigid routing device, measured
horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane, the part of that
anchorage that attaches to a tether hook may, at the manufacturer's
option (with said option selected prior to, or at the time of,
certification of the vehicle) be located outside that zone.
S6.3 Strength requirements for tether anchorages.
S6.3.1 Subject to S6.3.2, when tested in accordance with S8--
(a) Any point on the tether anchorage must not be displaced more
than 125 mm; and
(b) There shall be no complete separation of any anchorage
component.
S6.3.2 In vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004, each
user-ready tether anchorage in a row of designated seating positions in
a passenger car may, at the manufacturer's option (with said option
selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle),
instead of complying with
[[Page 10825]]
S6.3.1, withstand the application of a force of 5,300 N, when tested in
accordance with S8.2, such that the anchorage does not release the belt
strap specified in S8.2 or allow any point on the tether anchorage to
be displaced more than 125 mm.
S6.3.3 In the case of a row of designated seating positions that
has more than one tether anchorage, the force referred to in S6.3.1 and
S6.3.2 may, at the agency's option, be applied simultaneously to each
tether anchorage. However, a particular tether anchorage need not meet
further requirements after the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system of the designated seating position at which the tether
anchorage is installed have met S9.4.
S7. Test conditions for testing tether anchorages.
The test conditions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S7 apply
to the test procedures in S8.
(a) Vehicle seats are adjusted to their full rearward and full
downward position and the seat back is placed in its most upright
position.
(b) Head restraints are adjusted in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, provided pursuant to S12, as to how the
head restraints should be adjusted when using the child restraint
anchorage system. If instructions with regard to head restraint
adjustment are not provided pursuant to S12, the head restraints are
adjusted to any position.
S8. Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of
S6.3 when tested according to the following procedures. Where a range
of values is specified, the vehicle shall be able to meet the
requirements at all points within the range. For the testing specified
in these procedures, the SFAD used in the test has a tether strap
consisting of webbing material conforming to the breaking strength and
elongation limits (for Type I seat belt assemblies) set forth in
S4.2(b) and S4.2(c), respectively, of Standard No. 209 (Sec. 571.209).
The strap is fitted at one end with hardware for applying the force and
at the other end with a bracket for attachment to the tether anchorage.
S8.1 Apply the force specified in S6.3, as follows--
(a) Use the following specified test device, as appropriate:
(1) SFAD 1, to test a tether anchorage at a designated seating
position that does not have a child restraint anchorage system; or
(2) SFAD 2, to test a tether anchorage at a designated seating
position that has a child restraint anchorage system.
(b) Attach the test device to the vehicle belts or to the lower
anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system, as appropriate, and
attach the test device to the tether anchorage, in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions provided pursuant to S12. All belt systems
(including the tether) used to attach the test device are tightened to
a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as measured
by a load cell used on the webbing portion of the belt.
(c) Apply the force--
(1) Initially, in a forward direction parallel to a vertical
longitudinal plane and through the Point X on the test device; and
(2) Initially, along a horizontal line or along any line below or
above that line that is at an angle to that line of not more than 5
degrees. Apply a preload force of 500 N to measure the angle; and then
(3) Increase the preload pull force to a full force application of
15,000 N within 30 seconds, at an onset rate of not more than 135,000
N/s; and maintain at a 15,000 N level for a minimum of 1 second.
S8.2 Apply the force specified in S6.3 as follows:
(a) Attach a belt strap, and tether hook, to the user-ready tether
anchorage. The belt strap extends not less than 250 mm forward from the
vertical transverse plane touching the rear top edge of the vehicle
seat back, and passes over the top of the vehicle seat back as shown in
Figure 19 of this standard;
(b) Apply the force at the end of the belt strap--
(1) Initially, in a forward direction in a vertical longitudinal
plane that is parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline;
(2) Initially, along a horizontal line or along any line below or
above that line that is at an angle to that line of not more than 20
degrees;
(3) So that the force is attained within 30 seconds, at any onset
rate of not more than 135,000 N/s; and
(4) Maintained at a 5,300 N level for a minimum of 1 second.
S9. Requirements for the lower anchorages of the child restraint
anchorage system.
S9.1 Configuration of the lower anchorages
S9.1.1 The lower anchorages shall consist of two bars that--
(a) Are 6 mm 1 mm in diameter;
(b) Are straight, horizontal and transverse, and whose centroidal
longitudinal axes are collinear;
(c) Are not less than 25 mm, but not more than 40 mm in length;
(d) Can be connected to, over their entire length, as specified in
paragraph S9.1.1(c), by the connectors of a child restraint system;
(e) Are 280 mm 1 mm apart, measured from the center of
the length of one bar to the center of the length of the other bar;
(f) Are an integral and permanent part of the vehicle; and
(g) Are rigidly attached to the vehicle such that they will not
deform more than 5 mm when subjected to a 100 N force in any direction.
S9.2 Location of the lower anchorages.
S9.2.1 With adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.2.2, each
lower anchorage bar shall be located so that a vertical transverse
plane tangent to the front surface of the bar is:
(a) Not more than 70 mm behind the corresponding point Z of the
CRF, measured parallel to the bottom surface of the CRF and in a
vertical longitudinal plane, while the CRF is pressed against the seat
back by the rearward application of a horizontal force of 5 N at point
A on the CRF; and
(b) Not less than 120 mm behind the vehicle seating reference
point, measured horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane.
S9.2.2 Adjustable seats are adjusted as follows:
(a) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal
design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer; and
(b) Place adjustable seats in the full rearward and full downward
position.
S9.3 Adequate fit of the lower anchorages. Each vehicle and each
child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such
that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower
anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable
seats adjusted as described in S9.3(a) and (b).
(a) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal
design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer; and
(b) Place adjustable seats in the full rearward and full downward
position.
S9.4 Strength of the lower anchorages.
S9.4.1 When tested in accordance with S11, the lower anchorages
shall not allow point X on SFAD 2 to be displaced more than 125 mm
when--
(a) A force of 11,000 N is applied in a forward direction in a
vertical longitudinal plane that is parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline; and
(b) A force of 5,000 N is applied in a lateral direction in a
vertical longitudinal plane that is 755 degrees to either
side of a vertical longitudinal plane that is parallel to the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline.
[[Page 10826]]
S9.4.2 In the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more
than one child restraint anchorage system, at the agency's option, each
child restraint anchorage system may be tested simultaneously or
sequentially. Sequential testing may, at the agency's option, include
testing one system to the requirement of S9.4.1(a) and another system
to S9.4.1(b). However, the lower anchorages of a particular child
restraint anchorage system need not meet further requirements after
having met S9.4.1(a) or either lateral pull requirement in S9.4.1(b),
tested to any of these requirements at the agency's option.
S9.5 Marking and conspicuity of the lower anchorages. Each vehicle
shall comply with S9.5(a) or (b).
(a) Above each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be
permanently marked with a circle:
(1) That is not less than 13 mm in diameter;
(2) Whose color contrasts with its background; and
(3) That is located on each seat back such that its center is not
less than 50 mm and not more than 75 mm above the bar, and in the
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of the bar.
(b) The vehicle shall be configured such that each of the bars
installed pursuant to S4 is visible, without the compression of the
seat cushion or seat back, when the bar is viewed, in a vertical
longitudinal plane passing through the center of the bar, along a line
making an upward 30 degree angle with a horizontal plane.
S10. Test conditions for testing the lower anchorages. The test
conditions described in this paragraph apply to the test procedures in
S11.
(a) Vehicle seats are adjusted to their full rearward and full
downward position and the seat back in its most upright position.
(b) Head restraints are adjusted in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, provided pursuant to S12, as to how the
head restraints should be adjusted when using the child restraint
anchorage system. If instructions with regard to head restraint
adjustment are not provided pursuant to S12, the head restraints are
adjusted to any position.
S11. Test procedure. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of
S9.4 when tested according to the following procedures. Where a range
of values is specified, the vehicle shall be able to meet the
requirements at all points within the range.
(a) Forward force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. Apply a
preload force of 500 N at point X of the test device. Increase the
preload pull force to a full force application of 11,000 N within 30
seconds, with an onset rate not exceeding 135,000 N per second, and
maintain the 11,000 N level for 10 seconds.
(b) Lateral force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. Apply a
preload force of 500 N at point X of the test device. Increase the
preload pull force to a full force application of 5,000 N within 30
seconds, with an onset rate not exceeding 135,000 N per second, and
maintain the 5,000 N level for 10 seconds.
S12. Written instructions. The vehicle must provide written
instructions, in English, for using the tether anchorages and the child
restraint anchorage system in the vehicle. If the vehicle has an
owner's manual, the instructions must be in that manual. The
instructions shall:
(a) Indicate which seating positions in the vehicle are equipped
with tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems;
(b) In the case of vehicles required to be marked as specified in
paragraph S9.5(a), explain the meaning of markings provided to locate
the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage systems; and
(c) Include instructions that provide a step-by-step procedure,
including diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint system to
the tether anchorages and the child restraint anchorage systems.
S13. Tether anchorage phase-in requirements for passenger cars
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1,
2000.
S13.1 Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1999
and before September 1, 2000 shall comply with S13.1.1 through S13.2.
At anytime during the production year ending August 31, 2000, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the passenger cars (by
make, model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified
as complying with the tether anchorage requirements of this standard.
The manufacturer's designation of a passenger car as a certified
vehicle is irrevocable.
S13.1.1 Subject to S13.2, for passenger cars manufactured on or
after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000, the number of
vehicles complying with S4.2 shall be not less than 80 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of passenger cars
manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1,
1999; or
(b) The manufacturer's production of passenger cars manufactured on
or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000.
S13.1.2 For the purpose of calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles
manufactured by each manufacturer under S13.1.1, a vehicle produced by
more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer
as provided in S13.1.2(a) through (c), subject to S13.2.
(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
(c) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 596, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S13.1.2(a) or (b).
S13.2 For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
passenger cars for each manufacturer and the number of passenger cars
manufactured by each manufacturer under S13.1, each passenger car that
is excluded from the requirement to provide tether anchorages is not
counted.
S14. Lower anchorages phase-in requirements for vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1,
2002.
S14.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and
before September 1, 2002 shall comply with S14.1.1 through S14.1.2. At
anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2001, and August
31, 2002, each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles
(by make, model and vehicle identification number) that have been
certified as complying with the child restraint anchorage requirements
of this standard. The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a
certified vehicle is irrevocable.
S14.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and
before
[[Page 10827]]
September 1, 2001. Subject to S14.4, for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2001, the number of
vehicles complying with S4.3 shall be not less than 20 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1,
2000; or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2000 and
before September 1, 2001.
S14.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and
before September 1, 2002. Subject to S14.4, for vehicles manufactured
on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 2002, the number
of vehicles complying with S4.3 shall be not less than 50 percent of:
(a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1,
2001; or
(b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2001 and
before September 1, 2002.
S14.2 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
S14.2.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production
of vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles
manufactured by each manufacturer under S14.1.1 through S14.1.2, a
vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a
single manufacturer as follows, subject to S14.2.2.
(a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
S14.2.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 596, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under S14.2.1.
S14.3 Alternative phase-in schedule for final-stage manufacturers
and alterers. A final-stage manufacturer or alterer may, at its option,
comply with the requirements set forth in S14.3 (a) and (b) instead of
complying with the requirements set forth in S14.1.1 through S14.1.2.
(a) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before
September 1, 2002 are not required to comply with the requirements
specified in this standard.
(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 shall
comply with the requirements specified in this standard.
S14.4 For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under S14.1.1 and S14.1.2, each vehicle that is
excluded from the requirement to provide child restraint anchorage
systems is not counted.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 10828]]
Figures to Sec. 571.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.005
[[Page 10829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.006
[[Page 10830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.007
[[Page 10831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.008
[[Page 10832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.009
[[Page 10833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.010
[[Page 10834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.011
[[Page 10835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.012
[[Page 10836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.013
[[Page 10837]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.014
[[Page 10838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.015
[[Page 10839]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.016
[[Page 10840]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.017
[[Page 10841]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.018
[[Page 10842]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.019
[[Page 10843]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.020
[[Page 10844]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.021
[[Page 10845]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.022
[[Page 10846]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MR99.023
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 10847]]
5. Part 596 is added to read as follows:
PART 596--CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEM PHASE-IN REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
596.1 Scope.
596.2 Purpose.
596.3 Applicability.
596.4 Definitions.
596.5 Response to inquiries.
596.6 Reporting requirements.
596.7 Records.
596.8 Petition to extend period to file report.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 596.1 Scope.
This part establishes requirements for manufacturers of passenger
cars, and of trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less,
and of buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to submit a
report, and maintain records related to the report, concerning the
number of such vehicles that meet the requirements of Standard No. 225,
Child restraint anchorage systems (49 CFR 571.225).
Sec. 596.2 Purpose.
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225).
Sec. 596.3 Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of trucks
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, and of buses with a
GVWR of 4536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. However, this part does not apply
to vehicles excluded by S5 of Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) from
the requirements of that standard.
Sec. 596.4 Definitions.
(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used in their
statutory meaning.
(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR, multipurpose
passenger vehicle, passenger car, and truck are used as defined in 49
CFR 571.3.
(c) Production year means the 12-month period between September 1
of one year and August 31 of the following year, inclusive.
Sec. 596.5 Response to inquiries.
At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2000,
August 31, 2001, and August 31, 2002, each manufacturer shall, upon
request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide
information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle
identification number) that have been certified as complying with
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225). The manufacturer's designation of a
vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
Sec. 596.6 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end
of the production years ending August 31, 2000, August 31, 2001, and
August 31, 2002, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with the child restraint anchorage system requirements of
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) for its passenger cars, trucks,
buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles produced in that year. Each
report shall--
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer
complied with the child restraint anchorage system requirements of
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) for the period covered by the report
and the basis for that statement;
(5) Provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this
section;
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Report content.
(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each manufacturer shall
provide the number of passenger cars and trucks and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855
kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less manufactured for sale in the United States for each
of the three previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's
option, for the current production year. A new manufacturer that has
not previously manufactured these vehicles for sale in the United
States shall report the number of such vehicles manufactured during the
current production year.
(2) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production
year for which the report is filed: the number of passenger cars and
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, and buses with
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, that meet Standard No. 225 (49
CFR 571.225).
(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by S13.1.2(c) and S14.2.2 of
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225) shall:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract, and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
Sec. 596.7 Records.
Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 596.6(b)(2) until December 31, 2004.
Sec. 596.8 Petition to extend period to file report.
A manufacturer may petition for extension of time to submit a
report under this Part. A petition will be granted only if the
petitioner shows good cause for the extension and if the extension is
consistent with the public interest. The petition must be received not
later than 15 days before expiration of the time stated in
Sec. 596.6(a). The filing of a petition does not automatically extend
the time for filing a report. The petition must be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Note: The following appendices will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A--NHTSA's Evaluation of Cosco's Car Seat Only System
In the NPRM, the agency tentatively rejected Cosco's Car Seat
Only (CSO) system as an alternative to the proposed child restraint
anchorage system. Cosco opposed this in its comment.
Cosco believed that the flexible latchplate system, and by
implication the rigid bar anchorage system, will increase costs and
result in a significant increase in the number of infants and young
children killed and injured. Cosco said it retained Dr. Larry M.
Newman and Dr. Alan R. Winman to analyze price sensitivity for child
restraints. They concluded that: (a) The retail price for car seats
would increase from 28 to 110 percent; (b) the lower priced seats
would suffer the biggest percentage increase, so those persons least
able to purchase a new car seat would see the greatest proportionate
increase in
[[Page 10848]]
price; (c) 10 percent of these low priced seats would not be
purchased if prices increase as estimated with the flexible
latchplate system, resulting in 283,000 fewer car seats in use
annually and 122,000 fewer seats available through hospital and
loaner programs, and thus in a total of 405,000 fewer children being
restrained in car seats annually (which is estimated to be 6.6
percent of car seats sold through all channels of distribution in
1995); and (d) the 6.6 percent reduction in usage would result in 33
deaths and 33,000 serious injuries annually to children under age
five. Cosco argued that child restraint purchasers are not willing
to pay for a safety feature, and that State mandatory use laws will
not ``encourage the use of new expensive car seats to a greater
extent than they do today * * *.''
Cosco suggested that its CSO system is less costly than flexible
latchplate system and can be implemented faster. It believed that
the CSO belt is not likely to be misrouted on today's child
restraints that have all-molded shells and only one labeled belt
path. ``Misrouting is not cited as a significant misuse in clinic
studies. It is a non-factor today and should not be considered as an
issue.'' Cosco acknowledged that a belt adjuster would be needed for
the CSO and suggested that a high tension automatic locking
retractor (ALR) would eliminate concerns about the ability to cinch
up the CSO belt. In addition, Cosco suggested that the CSO belt
could be color coded, labeled, and otherwise distinguished from the
adult passenger belt, to ensure that passengers would not mistakenly
use the CSO belt for their own restraint.
In opposing the CSO system, Ford said that it agreed with most
of the reasons that NHTSA provided in the NPRM explaining why the
system did not appear satisfactory as a universal anchorage system.
Ford also stated--
Our primary concern is that the CSO system may not provide the
level of CRS crash performance available in current and future
vehicles with lockable lap/shoulder belts. The CSO system would add
substantial cost and weight to every vehicle, with a potential
degradation in CRS safety. In addition, Cosco's claim that the CSO
system could be installed quickly is inaccurate. If vehicle
manufacturers were to install the CSO system without adding new,
relocated anchorages for the CSO belts, the resulting CRS
performance would not be as good as installation with current lap/
shoulder belts. Acceptable installation of the CSO system would
require new anchorages in most vehicles, and thus would take as much
leadtime as any other CRS anchorage system.
NHTSA's Response to Cosco
NHTSA disagrees with Cosco's economic argument, and with Cosco's
views about the advantages it perceives in the CSO system.
The agency agrees that, under normal economic conditions, an
increase in prices may result, depending on the price elasticity of
demand, in a decrease in quantity demanded. The classical way of
estimating price elasticity of demand is to examine the change in
sales volume when there is a price increase or decrease, but the
product remains the same. However, as noted above, and further
discussed in the FEA, the agency believes that the demand for child
restraints is highly inelastic. This conclusion is supported by the
fact that child restraints can be considered a necessity since their
use is regulated in every State. Also, the information provided by
Cosco to the Docket (Docket number 96-095-N03-050), see Cosco's
Infant Car Seat by Price Segment, Table 2, indicates that price is
not the only criterion affecting sales. If it were, then the lowest
priced child restraints would have the highest sales volume.
However, they do not. In fact, some of the higher priced child
restraints have the higher sales volumes. Thus, consumers recognize
different qualities in different models of child restraints. Some
consumers are clearly willing to pay more for these perceived better
qualities.
A child restraint equipped for an independent anchorage system
is a safer product than conventional child restraints. When the
safety aspects of such a child restraint are advertised, consumers
will know that they are getting a better product. Based on clinical
trials, consumers who tried these new child restraints indicated
that they were willing to pay a higher price for these systems than
the incremental cost estimates. The researchers in the Canadian
study stated that the concern for significant reduction in child
restraint use if advanced designs result in a small price increase
was not supported in the study. The participants were willing to pay
higher prices for systems that they perceive are better than today's
child restraint systems. ``Usability Trials of Alternative ISOFIX
Child Restraint Attachment Systems,'' (ICBC, 1996). Ford (035),
Gerry Baby Products Company (039), Indiana Mills and Manufacturing
Inc. (040), and Volvo (053), commenting to the docket on this issue,
stated that child restraints were not price sensitive.
Finally, even if there were an adverse effect on the child
restraint market, especially the low end of that market, NHTSA
believes that the hospitals and loaner programs would be able to
provide child restraints for persons who wanted them but chose not
to buy one because of the price increase. From discussions with some
of these entities (hospitals and loaner programs), the agency has
found that they were eager to have the new seats because of their
improved safety and also because of their greater ease of
installation. Many of them believed that they would be able to
obtain enough funds to purchase the new seats without any major
change in the number of seats they are able to provide to the
public. In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics commented
that it believes that loan programs will be able to gradually
acquire child restraints with the newly designed attachment system.
NHTSA continues to believe that one of the CSO's main
disadvantages is that it is essentially no different from the
current lap belt means of attaching child restraints to vehicle
seats. The agency remains concerned that the CSO system might not
make attaching a child restraint significantly easier than it is
today. In the agency's view, one limitation is that the CSO belt
would have to be correctly routed through the child restraint. In
the NPRM, NHTSA said that manufacturers believe many consumers find
current routing difficult to achieve. (In the October 1996 public
workshop, Dave Campbell of Century and Klaus Werkmeister of BMW,
among others, referred to routing issues.)
The agency disagrees with Cosco's argument that proper routing
of belts is not an issue today in installing child restraints. In
the report ``Patterns of Misuse of Child Safety Seats,'' above, the
researchers found a 6 percent rate of misuse of child restraints in
use today due to misrouted seat belts with infant, convertible and
booster seats. The consequences resulting from this particular type
of misuse are more disastrous than those from other misuses that may
occur more frequently, such as the incorrect use of a locking clip.
Canada found in the clinic described in the NPRM (62 FR at 7864) on
the usability of various attachment systems that, while the flexible
latchplate and rigid bar anchorage system child restraints were
attached to the proper vehicle anchorages by every participant, the
lap belt system was secured by only 63 (82.9 percent) participants.
``Of the 13 participants who failed to secure the child restraint in
this manner, 5 gave up, one failed to engage the buckle and one
participant routed the seat belt through multiple ports. The
remaining 6 participants routed the lap belt [for the forward-facing
seat] through the rear-facing slots.'' (ICBC, 1996).
In addition, as explained in the NPRM, consumer clinics have
uniformly found that people highly dislike the conventional means of
attaching child restraints by way of the vehicle's belts. In the
Canadian study, participants rated the ease of installation for
different systems on a five point scale (1=very difficult to 5=very
easy). Participants at the end of the trials showed no strong
preference between the ISOFIX (rated 4.3), CANFIX (4.6), UCRA (4.4)
and ISO (4.1) systems. ``The conventional [lap belt] system,
however, was the last choice of the majority of participants and was
rated poorly in terms of ease of installation [3.1] and perceived
safety.'' As noted above, the Canadian study reports that
participants were willing to pay higher prices for systems that they
perceive are better than the lap belt system. Because the CSO system
is basically a lap belt system, the agency believes the findings
made in these studies are applicable to the CSO as well.
The NPRM indicated that the CSO system may be difficult to
tighten because photographs of the belt showed the retractor in a
place that may make it difficult for consumers to reach or tighten
the belt. The Canadian study found that the lap belt system had the
worst rate of proper installation, i.e., use of correct attachment
points and seat belt routing with no more than a given amount of
forward excursion of the top and lower part of the child restraint.
Recognizing the difficulty of cinching the CSO belt as initially
presented in its petition, and the importance of a tight fit, Cosco
commented that a high-tension ALR retractor could be installed on
the belt, to the rear of the seat bight, at a cost that would be
``not that much greater than the proposed UCRA.''
[[Page 10849]]
(Cosco did not provide a specific cost estimate.) Even without the
ALR, however, Ford opposed the CSO system, believing that the CSO
system would add substantial cost and weight to every vehicle, with
a potential degradation in CRS safety. Ford believed the CSO does
not provide as many safety benefits as a lap/shoulder belt system
because it believed that the shoulder portion of the Type II system,
routed through the back of the child restraint, would restrain the
top of a child restraint similar to the effect of a tether. Further,
apparently the advantage that Cosco claimed in terms of leadtime is
incorrect. Ford stated that the CSO system would take as long to
install in vehicles as any other attachment system. With regard to
the comment of Hartley Associates that the CSO had an advantage in
post-crash situations because emergency personnel need only release
one attachment point versus more than one point, NHTSA has no
information indicating that extrication by emergency personnel is a
problem area in need of attention at this time.
The agency disagrees that the risk of misuse would be
sufficiently addressed by, as suggested by Cosco, having the CSO
colored orange, having ``Car Seat Use Only'' woven or imprinted into
it, and having the high tension ALR retractor a part of it. NHTSA is
especially concerned about children who may be buckled in a belt-
positioning booster seat using the CSO belt or who may be buckled
into the CSO by itself on the vehicle seat. If a child is buckling
him or herself, the risk that confusion or unintended misuse will
occur is even greater. The safety consequences of a child wearing
only a lap belt is greater than that of an adult using a lap belt.
When a lap belt is used to restrain a child restraint, NHTSA has
observed that the angle formed by the belt from the perpendicular is
about 20 degrees. Given Cosco's assumption that the CSO belt would
be used to restrain a child restraint in the same manner that a lap
belt is now used, NHTSA assumes that the angle that would be formed
by the CSO belt would be about 20 degrees also. Twenty degrees is
much too shallow an angle for the lap belt to be safely positioned
in a crash, on the occupant's pelvis, where the bones are hard and
well formed and better able to withstand crash forces compared to
the soft, vulnerable organs and tissues of the abdominal area. Even
if the belt were to be placed on the child's pelvis, there could be
safety problems in a crash. A child's pelvis not as well formed as
an adult's, and a belt has a tendency to slide over the pelvis
(unencumbered by bony ``hooks'' that are formed on the adult pelvis)
onto the abdominal area. Also, children tend to slouch on the
vehicle seat so that they can ride comfortably. They do this because
when they sit upright, their legs are too short to enable them place
their knees at the front edge of the seat cushion. Slouching
increases the likelihood of the child's lower body sliding forward
(submarining) in a crash, which would further relocate the lap belt
upward on the child's abdomen. Further, because the CSO belt is
narrower than a lap belt provided for occupant protection, the
narrower width concentrates belt loads on the abdomen to a greater
degree than a seat belt.
For the reasons stated above, the agency believes the CSO system
is not a viable child restraint anchorage system. Action on Cosco's
petition is hereby withdrawn (terminated).
Appendix B--NHTSA's Evaluation of AAMA/AIAM Clinic Results
AAMA and AIAM asked MORPACE International, Inc., to conduct a
clinic comparing consumer likes and dislikes involving the flexible
latchplate and rigid bar anchorage systems. The clinic was held
April 15-20, 1998, in Novi, Michigan. Two hundred fifty-four (254)
individuals were asked to evaluate seven child restraint ``systems''
with respect to installation, operation and security. All seven
systems consisted of the same model of Century child restraint, each
with a different attachment system. These clinic participants
indicated their first, second and last choice of restraint system,
before and after being informed of the prices of the systems. A
subsample (less than 10 percent) also participated in ``exit
interviews'' to help provide insight into their responses.
When presented with the seven systems to choose from, 39 percent
of the participants preferred the Strap Based Buckle Connector (M)
system (UCRA system). The participants were offered only one buckle
system to choose from, but were offered three choices of the rigid
bar anchorage system (Strap-Based Snap Hook Connector [R], Bracket-
Based Connector [L], and Strap-Based Connector [S]). A complementary
system to M, the Bracket-Based Latchplate Buckle Connector (P)
system, was universally not preferred by participants. System P
consisted of a buckle holder on the vehicle seat that rigidly-
mounted latchplates on the child restraint system insert into.
The agency believes that the study does not offer anything
conclusive about preferences for the options, other than system P
was universally not a first choice. While participants gave higher
preference to the flexible latchplate anchorage system in the
clinic, NHTSA cannot conclude that the results support either a
flexible latchplate or a rigid bar anchorage system.
Sample of Participants Not Intended To Be Representative of U.S.
Population
Results are based on a purposively selected focus group. The
document does not indicate how the 254 individuals were selected to
participate in the clinic, other than to say that they were
``recruited.'' This recruiting apparently was quota driven as it
appears that it strived to obtain certain demographics. Summary
information about the group was provided in the supporting ``Data
Tabulations.'' All but three participants indicated that they had at
least one seat in their household. Vehicle ownership was split 54
percent automobiles to 46 percent ``trucks.'' Females and males were
similar in number. ``Empty nesters,'' which we assume to mean care
givers without their own children in residence, represented 24
percent of those recruited. The remaining sample was split almost
evenly between those under a ``median age'' and those at or above
that age. Forty-two percent were college graduates.
NHTSA is not able to determine how closely (or not) the
characteristics of the people included in this focus group
correspond to those of the population that would be most likely to
purchase child safety seats. It appears that those included in this
focus group were selected to match certain quota in order to produce
a balance. As such, this focus group is not a probability based
sample and cannot be assumed to be. Its results cannot be
generalized to represent all potential purchasers. Any regional bias
is not accounted for; we assume all participants were from Michigan.
Because it is not a statistical sample, it is not possible to say
that there is any statistical difference between the responses as
they relate to any population of interest. Responses are
representative of the focus group only.
Confounding Factors--Systems Presented Were Not Representative of
Systems as They Are Likely To Be Produced
The flexible latchplate system used in the clinic is different
from the one in the NPRM. It is not a pure flexible webbing system
as described by GM. The flat latchplate was imbedded in a material
that was semi-rigidly attached to a structure in the seat bight.
This anchorage system was practically fixed, i.e., did not allow its
being pushed in the direction of the seat bight. This feature
simulates the property of rigidity of the 6 mm fixed bar. Further,
the child restraint systems for the flexible latchplate system, and
other child restraint systems using connectors that were attached to
the child restraint by webbing material, were not reinforced the way
that a child restraint would have to be to meet Standard 213's
dynamic test requirements. Thus, the flexible latchplate child
restraints, and others, had an unrealistic weight advantage compared
to other child restraints.
Moreover, the rigid bar anchorage systems (R, L and S) were not
optimized. In fact, they were penalized by being heavier than they
would likely be if actually put into production. A child restraint
manufacturer could compensate for the heavy base mechanism used to
attach the rigid connectors to the Century child restraint by
reducing the weight of the child restraint. Since no effort was made
to take advantage of opportunities for compensatory weight
reduction, the child restraint equipped with rigid connectors
designed to be attached to rigid vehicle anchorages was
unrealistically bulky and heavy. A more realistic comparison would
have been to use a Britax child restraint system for the rigid bar
anchorage option. The child restraint that Britax has designed
weighs 17 lb. Britax optimizes the weight of its child restraint by
removing bulk and weight to compensate for the weight of the base.
(NHTSA understands that European manufacturers are currently
developing child restraints with rigid attachment for the rigid bar
anchorage system that will weigh even less than the current Britax
restraint system.) Also, the Century child restraint used in the
clinic was reported at the clinic as being priced approximately the
same as a Britax seat would be, even though the Century seat did not
have many of the features of a Britax seat that
[[Page 10850]]
participants might have thought would make the restraint ``worth the
cost.''
The Preferences for a Rigid Bar System in the Vehicle Cannot Be
Added Together
A number of parties commenting on the results of the clinic
stated that NHTSA should add the proportions of participants who
expressed preferences for three different child restraint attachment
systems designed to be used with rigid 6 mm round bars. This, these
commenters believed, would show that more participants preferred a
round bar system over the flexible latchplate system. Chrysler
disagreed that the proportions could be added, but still believed
that the rigid bar anchorage system is superior to the flexible
latchplate system. Ford said that it may not be statistically valid
to add the preferences expressed for the round bar system, but
believes ``it is directionally right'' to do so.
NHTSA does not believe that the proportions can be added. It is
not known how much a participant's choice was based on a preference
for the connecting mechanism. Thus, it cannot be assumed that if
they had been offered only the flexible latchplate system and only
one of the rigid bar system variants, participants would have chosen
in the same proportion (39/48).
Preference for UCRA System Could Be Influenced by a Familiarity
With the Hardware; Familiarity Should Not Be a Factor Because It
Can Be Compensated for Simply by Time
The higher scores for Overall Suitability and Value For Money
for the flexible latchplate system (System M) reflects that fewer
participants gave system M low scores in these areas than for the
other systems. Scores were closer for specific questions, although
system M consistently scored highest or next highest. These
preferences and low scores may reflect familiarity with something
similar to existing systems (buckle-based systems) or unfamiliarity
with a new system (latching on to a bar). The effect of cost on the
evaluations is interesting, too. Despite similar costs for systems
M, R and S, knowledge of system costs affected preferences
disproportionately.
Issued on February 23, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-5053 Filed 3-1-99; 9:16 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
