[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1224-1225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-330]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6628]


Notice of Public Meeting to Address Identification and 
Publication of the Relative Safety Performance of Different Child 
Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 9, 2000, NHTSA will conduct a public meeting to 
discuss the safety performance of child restraint systems and options 
for providing consumers with information on the safety performance of 
different child restraints. The intent of this meeting is to allow the 
sharing of viewpoints, information, and ideas on this important subject 
among all interested members of the public, including industry, 
government, and advocacy groups. Topics to be discussed include 
voluntary standards, strategies for enhancing compliance margins, 
improved labeling, and possible ways of rating child restraint safety 
performance. We also plan to discuss possible means of notifying 
consumers about any ratings that are developed, as well as other 
relevant safety information. We anticipate that improving consumer 
awareness of these matters will lead manufacturers to improve the 
safety of their child restraints.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: NHTSA will hold the public meeting 
on February 9, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, and continuing from 1 p.m 
to 4 p.m., if necessary. The public meeting will be held in room in 
Room 2230, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington DC 20590. If you wish to participate in the meeting, please 
contact Deborah L. Parker or James Gilkey at the mailing address or 
telephone number listed below by January 21, 2000. If your presentation 
will include slides, motion pictures, or other visual aids, please so 
indicate and NHTSA will make the proper equipment available. Presenters 
should bring at least one copy of their presentation to the meeting so 
that NHTSA can readily include the material in the public record. Those 
speaking at the public meeting should limit the length of their 
presentations to 15 minutes.
    Written Comments: The agency has established Docket No. NHTSA-1999-
6628 as a repository for comments on the issues presented in this 
notice. Written comments may be made to this docket at any time. If you 
wish to submit written comments on the issues related to or discussed 
at this meeting, they should refer to Docket No. NHTSA-1999-6628 and be 
submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah L. Parker (telephone 202-366-
1768), Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance--NSA 30; James Gilkey 
(telephone 202-366-5295), Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance--NSA 32; 
or Mary Versailles (telephone 202-366-2057, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards--NPS 32, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    We are all concerned with assuring the safety of our children, our 
most precious cargo. With the cooperation of numerous partners, 
including the child restraint industry, we have made great strides 
during the past few years in enhancing the safety of children riding in 
motor vehicles. For example, all states now have laws requiring 
children to be in child restraints, and many of these laws have been 
upgraded. More and more children are riding in child restraints, and 
they have saved an average of over 300 lives per year over the past 
five years.
    There has also been an increased public awareness of the need to 
install child restraint systems properly and to keep children in 
appropriate child restraint systems as long as possible. To help assure 
proper installation, NHTSA has recently adopted a new safety standard 
establishing uniform attachment methods for child restraints. The child 
seat manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, and others in the child 
safety community were instrumental in the development of this new 
standard. We also applaud the development by manufacturers of child 
restraint systems that are easier to install properly as well as 
creative, updated installation instructions that are easier for parents 
to understand and follow.
    However, despite our joint successes in this area, there are issues 
that require further attention. As a key protective device for our 
Nation's children, child restraints must be designed and constructed 
with the highest levels of safety in mind. Any instance in which child 
restraints fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 causes us concern. Even apart 
from actual noncompliances, our review of NHTSA's compliance test 
results during the past few years indicates that many restraints have 
been engineered to just comply with some of the most safety-critical 
requirements of the standard, rather than being engineered with 
substantial compliance margins. For example, with respect to the head 
excursion requirements of FMVSS No. 213, few of the restraints tested 
by NHTSA had a compliance margin of ten percent or more, and hardly any 
had more than a twenty percent compliance margin. Conversely, 
representatives of some vehicle manufacturers have advised us 
informally that they generally have a goal of a twenty percent 
compliance margin (although they acknowledge that this goal may not 
always be achieved.)

B. Dr. Martinez' Letter to Child Restraint Manufacturers

    On September 14, 1999, former NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez, 
MD, sent a letter to all manufacturers of child restraints sold in the 
United States. That letter identified the above-referenced concerns 
about child restraint safety and pointed out that, with the safety of 
our Nation's children at issue, mere compliance with the minimum 
requirements of the standard is not enough. When products are 
engineered with narrow compliance margins, there is room for safety

[[Page 1225]]

improvement, even if the product is in technical compliance with the 
minimum performance requirements established by the standard. He also 
noted that consumers were very interested in the relative performance 
of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, such as child 
restraints.
    Dr. Martinez urged each manufacturer of child restraints to ensure 
that their restraints perform above the minimum requirements of our 
standard, and indicated that the agency planned to schedule a meeting 
``to discuss ways to maximize the safe transportation of children,'' 
including the possibility of establishing a rating system for child 
restraints.
    The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) responded on 
behalf of the child restraint manufacturers with a letter dated 
November 12, 1999. JPMA said that the historical performance of child 
restraint systems in compliance testing is excellent and that their 
performance in actual crashes is outstanding. Regarding a rating 
system, JPMA said that they believe there are many issues that need to 
be discussed before any decision can be made as to the appropriateness 
of developing such a program for child restraint systems. In closing, 
JPMA said that they feel it is in the best interest of all involved to 
develop an ongoing dialogue concerning child passenger safety.

C. Public Meeting

    On February 9, 2000, NHTSA will conduct a public meeting to provide 
a forum for all interested persons to discuss the issues set out above. 
We are especially interested in non-regulatory initiatives that parties 
could undertake to improve the safety of child restraints. Specific 
topics to be discussed at the meeting include:
    1. How can the safety performance of child restraints be further 
improved?
    2. Even among complying child restraints, are some restraints safer 
than others? What data, other than NHTSA compliance test results, exist 
to answer this question?
    3. Would the development of voluntary industry standards that 
exceed or build on the Federal standards be an effective means of 
improving child restraint system performance? The recent recalls to 
remedy problems with the handles on certain infant seats is an example 
of an issue that could have been addressed by the industry before the 
seats were brought to market. Could the problems with the handles have 
been avoided by use of voluntary industry standards? What other means 
are available that reduce the likelihood that such problems recur in 
the future?
    4. Would increasing compliance margins improve the safety of child 
restraints? If so, what can be done to increase compliance margins?
    5. Other international programs, such as those in Australia, Japan, 
and Europe, have developed or are developing safety ratings of child 
restraints under their New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP). Would 
ranking the relative performance of child restraints be of interest and 
value to consumers? If so:

--Should the performance of child restraints be ranked under test 
conditions that supplement the minimum requirements of FMVSS No. 213, 
as we do for vehicles in NCAP? If so, under what conditions (e.g., sled 
test at 35 mph)?
--Should we consider a rating system based on the compliance margins of 
child restraints in current NHTSA tests? This approach would be less 
costly for the agency to implement than a separate high speed test 
program.
--Which performance requirements should be emphasized (e.g., chest g's, 
HIC, head excursion, or some composite)?
--A child restraint that may have performed very well in the agency's 
comparative testing might not be the best choice for a particular 
vehicle or individual consumer, because performance may be affected by 
the vehicle seat, the vehicle configuration and performance, and proper 
consumer use based on manufacturers' instructions. Should and could 
these factors be reflected in a rating system? If so, how?

D. Oral Presentations

    NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids to participants as necessary. Any 
person desiring assistance of ``auxiliary aids'' (e.g., sign-language 
interpreter, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDDs), 
readers, taped texts, brailled materials, or large print materials and/
or a magnifying device), please contact Deborah Parker on (202) 366-
1768, or James Gilkey on (202) 366-5295 by January 7, 2000.

E. Written Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this notice. 
Two copies should be submitted to DOT's Docket Management Office at the 
address given at the beginning of this document. Comments must not 
exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). Necessary attachments may be 
appended to these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit. This 
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary 
arguments in a concise fashion.
    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 two 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to Docket Management. 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.

    Issued on: January 3, 2000.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
Noble N. Bowie,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-330 Filed 1-4-00; 12:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P