[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47728-47732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23071]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-095, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG50
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that NHTSA will be holding a public
workshop to explore issues relating to improving child safety by
establishing requirements for universal child restraint anchorage
systems. The purpose of the workshop is 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.
DATES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in Washington
DC on October 9 and 10, 1996, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Dr.
George Mouchahoir, at the address or telephone number listed below, by
October 4, 1996.
Written comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency
and must be received by October 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public workshop: The public workshop will be held in room
2230 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington DC 20590.
Written comments: All written comments must refer to the docket and
notice number of this notice and be submitted (preferable 10 copies) to
the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Mouchahoir, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590
(telephone 202-366-4919).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Safety Problem
A child restraint system that is properly installed in a motor
vehicle and used correctly can reduce the chance of serious injury in a
crash by 67 percent and fatal injury by an estimated 71 percent.
However, the safety benefits of a child restraint system can be reduced
considerably or even negated altogether when the child restraint is not
properly installed and used. A four-state study done for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1996 examined people
who use child restraint systems and found that approximately 80 percent
of the persons made at least one error in using the systems.1 The
rates of incorrect usage for specific components were 72 percent for
the clip designed to lock the vehicle lap belt used to secure the child
restraint system, 59 percent for the harness retainer chest clip, 46
percent for the harness strap, and 17 percent for the vehicle safety
belt. The study did not address the potential risk of injury for each
mode of incorrect usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of this study will be placed in the docket prior to
the public workshop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major source of difficulty in properly installing child
restraints is incompatibility between child restraints and vehicle
seating positions and safety
[[Page 47729]]
belt systems. Incompatibility can occur as the result of:
The seat belt anchorages being positioned too far forward
of the seat bight.2 Some vehicle manufacturers have moved the
anchorages farther forward of the seat bight to improve the path of the
lap belt across the lap of adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The intersection of the vehicle seat back and its seat
cushion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom cushion of some vehicle seats are too deeply
contoured. As a result, there is no surface on the seats which can be
used to mount a child restraint stably.
The seat belt may not be long enough to permit it to be
fastened around child restraints, or special child restraints. In
addition, the seat belt hardware may not be suitable for use with these
restraints. In these cases, the seat belt may not properly hold the
child restraint.
The vehicle seat is not wide enough or long enough to
properly accommodate the child restraint.
II. Past Efforts to Develop Solutions
One of NHTSA's highest priorities is improving the proper
installation and use of child restraints. NHTSA Administrator Ricardo
Martinez, M.D. has appeared on national television to make the public
more aware of the need for increasing the correct use of child
restraints. The agency has also worked with newspapers, magazines and
other journals across the country to alert the public to the causes and
consequences of incorrect use. In February 1995, Administrator Martinez
announced the formation of a ``Blue Ribbon Panel'' of experts to
recommend ways that child restraints can be made easier to install and
use. Panel members included child safety advocates and representatives
of the motor vehicle, child safety seat and seat belt industries. Both
domestic and foreign manufacturers were represented.
On April 2, 1995, NHTSA held a public meeting to obtain public
comment on the causes of incorrect child restraint use and
incompatibility with motor vehicles. Among other things, participants
provided information about compatibility problems between vehicle seat
and belt assemblies and child restraints. NHTSA expressed concern that
child restraints and the vehicles in which they are used are not always
readily compatible, thereby making it difficult for parents to install
and use the restraint systems to ensure that their child receives the
best protection.
On May 30, 1995, the ``Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Restraint and
Vehicle Compatibility'' issued its report recommending ways to improve
the correct and convenient use of child restraints and to seek
solutions to improve the compatibility between child restraints and
vehicle seating positions. The panel addressed child restraint
compatibility issues in three time frames--(1) existing products
currently being used by consumers, (2) products currently for sale in
the marketplace or available in the near future, and (3) new
technologies for future products.
With respect to long term solutions, the Blue Ribbon Panel
recommended an entirely new and separate anchorage system for child
restraint installation, given the complex variables affecting the
proper installation of child restraints using existing vehicle safety
belts. The panel noted that the International Standards Organization
(ISO), Technical Committee 22, Subcommittee 12, Working Group 1, Child
Restraint Systems, was developing a system known as ISOFIX that uses
four rigid uniform attachment points for child restraints and vehicle
seating positions. The panel further recommended that
NHTSA should expeditiously complete a comprehensive evaluation
of ISOFIX, including appropriate crash modes and child comfort
issues, and should initiate rulemaking that, if NHTSA's evaluation
is found acceptable, will permit ISOFIX or a uniform attachment
points system that is functionally compatible with ISOFIX under
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213.
In the Fall of 1995, NHTSA initiated a research program to support
rulemaking about a universal 3 child restraint anchorage system
such as the ISOFIX. The research program consisted of five major
elements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In today's notice, NHTSA refers to these anchorages as
``universal child restraint anchorage systems.'' This term should
not be confused with the term, ``uniform child restraint anchorage
systems,'' used by GM and the other manufacturers in their petition
for rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of safety performance issues,
Assessment of benefits,
A tear down cost study,
Evaluation of consumer acceptance, and
Harmonization and cooperative work over the development of
a universal system.
On January 23, 1996, the Blue Ribbon Panel met to discuss ISOFIX
and other universal attachment systems. At this meeting, most of the
domestic child restraint manufacturers and most of the domestic and
foreign vehicle and safety belt manufacturers that were present stated
their opposition to ISOFIX without further evaluation of that system
and other universal attachment systems. The panel as a whole expressed
concern that ISOFIX might be too rigid, too susceptible to false
latching, unreasonably expensive, and too heavy.
To encourage NHTSA to evaluate other universal anchorage systems in
addition to ISOFIX, the Blue Ribbon Panel adopted two statements to
clarify its initial recommendation:
At this time, the panel does not endorse ISOFIX as the
singular uniform attachment points system for future use in the
United States. However, the panel continues to strongly endorse
uniform attachment points for child restraints.
Other child restraint anchorage concepts, in addition to
ISOFIX, should be evaluated by interested parties (e.g., child
restraint and vehicle manufacturers, regulators, etc.) prior to
initiating regulatory proposals or requiring any specific design
concept.
In June 1996, the Blue Ribbon Panel issued a report titled a
``Progress Report on 1995 Recommendations.'' That report stated that
NHTSA had conducted tests of ISOFIX child restraint systems and will
continue to conduct testing. The tests included dynamic sled tests
using rear-facing and forward-facing child restraints on a Standard No.
213 test fixture fitted with matching rigid attachment points hardware,
as specified by ISO.
In the same month, NHTSA completed its ISOFIX research program. It
is now in the process of documenting the findings of this program. As
part of this program, the agency has conducted a tear down cost
analysis of alternative universal child restraint anchorage systems.
The agency has also conducted sled testing of the ISOFIX at its Vehicle
Research Test Center. The agency anticipates that the cost analysis and
the sled testing results will be available at the public workshop. The
agency will put in the docket an analysis entitled, ``Target Population
Assessment, Clinic and Test Results for Universal Attachment Points for
Child Restraints,'' which provides much of the data collected by the
agency on this issue and some analyses of those data.
III. Solutions Currently Under Consideration
This section briefly describes the ISOFIX four-point rigid system.
It then discusses other anchorage systems that were developed by
interested parties, including ISO, the governments of other countries,
and vehicle and child restraint manufacturers, as alternatives to
ISOFIX in response to the problems associated with that system.
[[Page 47730]]
A. ISOFIX Four-Point Rigid System
The ISOFIX four-point rigid attachment system consists of two rear
anchorage points hidden in the area where the vehicle seat cushion and
seat back intersect. These anchorages are specified by the ISO Working
Group as short steel bars with a diameter of 6 mm. A four-point system
presents certain advantages over a two-point system (discussed below).
Its greater number of attachment points provides a degree of fail-safe
backup protection. Further, it provides firm anchorage independent of a
vehicle's seat cushion and lap belt, thus eliminating use problems
associated with those vehicle components.
B. CANFIX Two-Point Rigid System Plus Tether
Transport Canada has developed the CANFIX system which consists of
two rigid rear attachments like ISOFIX at the bight of the seat plus an
upper tether. This system requires all vehicles to be equipped with
upper tether anchorage locations. Transport Canada developed the CANFIX
as an alternative to the four-point ISOFIX based on its interest in a
tether as a third attachment point and on its concerns about the
acceptability to vehicle manufacturers of the front attachment points
on vehicle seats.
CANFIX is supported by Australia which refers to the system as
CAUSFIX. Australia selected CAUSFIX after testing CAUSFIX, the four-
point ISOFIX, and current systems. CAUSFIX was preferred because it was
thought to provide the best potential for side impact protection and
because upper tethers have strong support in Australia. As of July
1996, Australia had not tested a system like that described in the next
section, i.e., a two-point soft system plus tether.
C. US and Japanese Industry Petition For Two-Point Soft System Plus
Tether
On June 28, 1996, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) which includes
General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford; certain members (Honda, Isuzu,
Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota) of the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM); and the Juvenile Products
Manufacturer's Association (JPMA) which includes Century, Evenflo,
Fisher-Price, Gerry, Kolcraft, and Indiana Mills and
Manufacturing.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Today's notice refers to this petition as the ``joint U.S./
Japanese industry petition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the joint U.S./Japanese industry petition, the petitioners
requested that the agency conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require
vehicle manufacturers to provide uniform child restraint anchorages
(UCRA) for add-on child restraint systems at (1) the two outermost,
forward-facing second row positions, and (2) at least one front
position in vehicles that either lack second row seats or have second
row seats incapable of accommodating a rear facing infant seat and that
have a switch for deactivating the front passenger air bag. In
addition, a top tether anchorage would be required at each rear seating
position.
A child restraint placed in the rear center seating position would
be secured at the top by the top tether and at the bottom by the
current center lap belt. The petitioners also requested that child
restraint manufacturers be required to provide new child restraint
system designs compatible with both (1) the petitioners' requested UCRA
system (used alone), and (2) existing vehicle seat belt systems (used
alone).
To achieve these ends, the joint U.S./Japanese industry petitioners
recommended a UCRA system that consists of two lower anchorages near
the bight line and an upper tether anchorage. The lower anchorages
would utilize a standard non-proprietary ``anchorage latch plate''
geometry compatible with a small, easy-to-use buckle as well as
existing tether hooks, and the upper tether anchorage would be
compatible with tether hooks.
The joint U.S./Japanese industry petitioners believed that the
combination of three specific factory installed anchorages at two
designated seating positions, along with compatible child restraint
systems would: (1) provide additional protection for add-on child
restraint system occupants when compared to child restraint systems
secured with existing vehicle belts, and (2) promote higher child
restraint use rates by enhancing the confidence of the person
installing a child restraint system that the system is securely
fastened.
D. European Industry Hybrid System
As a refinement of the ISOFIX four-point rigid system, several
European ISO manufacturer members are currently developing a hybrid
system. The system consists of two lower attachment points located in
the seat bight and an upper attachment point located behind the vehicle
seat back. A child restraint system could be attached to the two lower
attachment points by means of either a buckle or the ISOFIX connector.
The object of this option is to achieve worldwide compatibility between
the UCRA and ISOFIX types of connectors. The upper anchorage for the
tether anchorage on the vehicle and the tether hook on the child
restraint would be optional depending on national regulations. The
specification of the tether on the child restraint and anchorage on the
vehicle are the same as the UCRA system.
E. Cosco Petition For Additional Vehicle Lap Belt
On July 1, 1996, COSCO submitted a petition for rulemaking. COSCO
acknowledged that both rigid and soft systems are technically feasible
and produce good results in simulated crashes. However, it expressed
concern that the adoption of any universal anchorage systems would
significantly increase the average retail price of a convertible child
restraint system from 40 percent to 300 percent. The petitioner
believed that such a price increase would severely limit the
availability and use of child restraint systems. COSCO further stated
that child restraints secured with universal anchorage systems perform
only marginally better in dynamic tests compared to current child
restraint systems. The petitioner noted also that most consumers would
not realize benefits from these improvements until a majority of
vehicles were equipped with a universal attachment.
Based on these concerns, COSCO recommended that vehicle
manufacturers be required to install a separate lap belt at or near of
the bight of the rear center position and one rear outboard position in
each vehicle having a second row of seats, and at least one in the
front seat of vehicles lacking a rear seat. It believed such a
requirement would be more cost effective, simpler and more quickly
implemented. COSCO further requested that vehicle manufacturers be
required to install a tether anchorage at each designated seating
position equipped with the anticipated UCRA.
F. Summary of Solutions
The following table compares the various competing solutions to the
problem of providing universal child restraint anchorages based on
several attributes, including effectiveness, relative cost, and weight.
The table also identifies notable advantages of each solution.
[[Page 47731]]
Universal Child Restraint Anchorage Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANFIX 2-point rigid & UCRA 2-point soft & HYBRID 2-point rigid/
ISOFIX 4-point rigid tether tether soft lower & tether COSCO lap belt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effectiveness--Crash Tests......... High.................. High.................. High................. Assumed to be similar Assumed to be as good
to CANFIX & UCRA. as or better than
existing vehicle
safety belts.
Incremental Child Restraint Cost $90-100............... $50-$60............... $20.................. $20 or $50-60........ None.
Increase to Consumers \5\.
Incremental Vehicle Cost Increase $9.................... $8.................... $12.................. Unknown.............. $10.
to Consumers.
Incremental Child Restraint Weight 5 to 8 pounds......... 3 to 5 pounds......... 4 to 5 pounds........ 3 to 5............... None.
Increase \6\.
Other Advantages................... Firm anchorage Tether provides added Familiar belt Versatile & Simplicity & familiar
independent of protection. hardware. harmonization. belt hardware.
vehicle seat/belt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Consumer Surveys
Various surveys have been conducted to determine consumer
acceptance and preference of alternative ISOFIX-type child restraint
systems. User trials in Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom found
that the largest majority of parents preferred the four-point rigid
ISOFIX system compared to current child restraint systems. The trials
also found that the majority of parents correctly fitted the ISOFIX. In
contrast, less than half of the parents surveyed correctly fitted the
current child restraint systems. It should be noted that these user
trials did not include the UCRA system which the joint U.S./Japanese
industry petitioners have asked the agency to adopt. At the time of
those trials, the UCRA system was not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These costs are in addition to the costs associated with
existing child restraints. Child restraints currently cost between
$40 and $80.
\6\ Child restraints currently weigh 10 to 15 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 1996, General Motors and other manufacturers conducted two
consumer clinics, one in the U.S. and a second in Japan. The surveys
sought to determine consumer preference on alternative universal child
restraint anchorage systems, including the four-point ISOFIX and
variations of the UCRA system. As stated in the joint U.S./Japanese
industry petition, the results of the clinics indicate that most
participants preferred the UCRA system over the current child
restraints and ISOFIX systems.
An ad hoc group of the ISO Working Group on child restraint systems
is currently gathering information on the performance, cost, and public
acceptance of the ISOFIX, CANFIX, UCRA and the Hybrid system.
Currently, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in Canada
is sponsoring independent user trials to determine consumer preference
regarding alternative universal child restraint anchorage systems. The
trials will cover all options being considered by ISO, including the
Hybrid system, if available.
IV. Public Workshop
A. Purposes
In an effort to narrow the array of competing solutions, NHTSA is
holding a public workshop. The agency is holding a workshop instead of
its typical, legislative type public meeting in order to facilitate the
interactive exchange and development of ideas among the attending
interested parties. NHTSA expects that those parties will include
consumer and safety advocacy groups as well as vehicle and child
restraint system manufacturers.
The specific purposes of the workshop are to--
Compare solutions. 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 prospects for single or compatible solutions.
Assess the prospects for the adoption in this country and elsewhere of
a single regulatory solution or at least compatible regulatory
solutions; and
Promote convergence. Promote the convergence of those
solutions.
NHTSA notes that in selecting the best solution, tradeoffs may have
to be made among the various criteria in the matrix. For instance, the
solution that performs best in safety tests might not be the solution
with the highest level of consumer acceptance. If so, the solution that
performs best in safety tests may not be the solution that offers, as a
practical matter, the most safety benefits. The agency will examine the
need to make such tradeoffs in developing its proposal.
NHTSA plans to rely on the information presented at the workshop to
assist in developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would
propose requiring a universal child restraint anchorage system. The
agency believes that any proposal to require a universal child
restraint anchorage system should advance the following goals:
Improve the compatibility between child restraint systems
and vehicle seats and belt systems, thereby decreasing the potential
that a child restraint is 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;
Ensure that the child restraint systems and anchorages are
cost effective; and
Achieve international compatibility of child restraint
performance requirements for uniform attachment points.
B. Procedural matters
October 9; morning. The morning of the first day will be devoted
primarily to technical presentations. The rationale for each of the
five solutions will be discussed by a representative or representatives
of the parties which developed that solution. Those presentations
should include, if possible, prototypes and other visual displays. Then
there will be technical
[[Page 47732]]
presentations by a representative or representatives of the experts who
conducted the consumer acceptance studies mentioned in this document.
The agency will contact the parties responsible for the alternative
solutions and consumer acceptance studies to arrange these
presentations.
Finally, procedures for encouraging an exchange of ideas during the
interactive phase of the workshop will be discussed.
October 9; afternoon. The afternoon of the first day will be
devoted to an interactive discussion among interested persons. Those
persons interested in actively participating in this phase of the
workshop should contact Dr. Mouchahoir not later than October 4. The
agency will make available an agenda setting forth the sequence of
issues to be discussed during the interactive phase. Persons wishing to
make closing remarks on the afternoon of October 10 should contact Dr.
Mouchahoir not later than the end of the session on October 9.
October 10; morning and beginning of afternoon. The interactive
phase will continue.
October 10; latter part of afternoon. Beginning about mid-
afternoon, any participant who wishes to do so may make closing remarks
for a period not to exceed 10 minutes. If time permits, persons who
have not requested time, but would like to make remarks, will be
afforded the opportunity to do so.
To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids
(e.g., sign-language interpreter, braille materials, large print
materials and/or a magnifying device) to participants as necessary,
during the workshop. Any person desiring assistance of auxiliary aids
should contact Ms. Bernadette Millings, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, telephone (202) 366-1740, no later than 10 days before the
workshop. For any presentation that will include slides, motion
pictures, or other visual aids, the presenters should bring at least
one copy to the workshop so that NHTSA can readily include the material
in the public record.
NHTSA will place a copy of any written statement in the docket for
this notice. In addition, the agency will make a verbatim record of the
public workshop and place a copy in the docket.
Participation in the workshop is not a prerequisite for the
submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all
interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and copies
from which the purportedly confidential information has been deleted
should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be
considered. Comments will be available for inspection in the docket.
NHTSA will continue to file relevant information as it becomes
available in the docket after the closing date. It is therefore
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Those desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the
docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the docket
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 57l
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: September 4, 1996.
L. Robert Shelton,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-23071 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
