Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems

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