[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