[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47566-47608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22174]



[[Page 47565]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Part 571



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems; Child 
Restraint Anchorage Systems; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 47566]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6160]
RIN 2127-AH65


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems; 
Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to some of the issues raised by 
petitions for reconsideration of a March 1999 final rule establishing 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint 
Anchorage Systems. The standard requires vehicle manufacturers to 
install the upper (tether) anchorages of universal child restraint 
anchorage systems, beginning September 1, 1999, and lower anchorages of 
those systems beginning September 1, 2000. This fall, we plan to 
publish a second document responding further to the petitions.
    In response to concerns of several petitioners about leadtime for 
and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in 
the March 1999 final rule, this document permits vehicle manufacturers 
to meet alternative requirements during an initial several year period. 
During this period, manufacturers have the alternative of meeting 
either the requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the less 
stringent Canadian requirements for tether anchorages, and those set 
forth in a draft standard being developed by a working group of the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for lower 
anchorages. The temporary alternative for tether anchorages lasts until 
September 1, 2001, and that for lower anchorages until September 1, 
2002.
    This document also clarifies the test procedures used to test 
tether anchorages and the lower child restraint anchorage systems; 
excludes shuttle buses from the standard; denies petitions from the 
Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers and Indiana Mills 
and Manufacturing; and makes technical amendments to correct some of 
the figures and other portions of the March 1999 final rule, including 
amendments to Standard No. 213.

DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective September 1, 
1999.
    Petitions for reconsideration of this rule must be received by 
October 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW, 
Washington, DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For nonlegal issues: George Mouchahoir, PhD., (202-366-4919), 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA.
    For legal issues: Deirdre R. Fujita, Esq., Office of the Chief 
Counsel (202-366-2992), NHTSA.
    Both of these officials can be reached at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC, 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of March 1999 Final Rule
    a. Final rule
     b. Key implementation dates
    c. Rationale for the compliance dates for the final rule
II. Petitions for Reconsideration of Final Rule
III. Response to Petitions
    a. Universal child restraint anchorage systems for motor 
vehicles
    1. Leadtime
    A. Tether anchorage
    B. Lower anchorages
    C. General issues about the options
    2. Harmonization
    3. Notice and opportunity to comment
    4. Other issues
    A. Procedures for testing tether anchorages
    B. Issues relating to the application of the standard
    C. Written instructions
    b. Requirements for child restraints relating to September 1, 
1999 compliance date
    1. Audible or visual indication of attachment
    2. Attachments must be permanent
    c. Reasons for the effective date of this rule
IV. Corrections to Final Rule
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    a. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures
    b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    c. Executive Order 12612
    d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    e. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    f. National Environmental Policy Act
    g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    h. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Summary of March 1999 Final Rule

a. Final Rule

    On February 27, 1999, President Clinton announced a new motor 
vehicle safety standard to improve the installation of child restraints 
in motor vehicles. The new rule, published by NHTSA on March 5, 1999, 
requires the installation of universal systems for attaching child 
restraints in vehicles (64 FR 10786). Most vehicles will be required to 
have these systems at two rear seating positions. Each system will have 
three anchorages: two lower anchorages and one upper anchorage. The 
lower anchorages are two 6 mm round steel bars fastened to the vehicle 
roughly a foot apart and positioned where the vehicle seat cushion and 
seat back meet. The upper anchorage is a ring to which the upper tether 
of a child restraint can be attached. In addition, an upper anchorage 
will be required at a third seating position. New child seats will have 
components that snap or hook onto these anchorages. By requiring an 
easy-to-use anchorage system that is independent of the vehicle seat 
belts, the new rule makes it easier to install child restraints 
securely and will thereby increase safety for children.
    To the extent consistent with safety, we sought to harmonize our 
rule with requirements being considered by standard bodies and 
regulatory authorities in Europe and elsewhere. We considered a number 
of alternatives to the anchorage system we ultimately adopted, 
including anchorage system designs developed by General Motors and by 
Cosco, a child restraint manufacturer. Ultimately, we chose to 
establish performance requirements that were based on a draft standard 
1 developed by the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), a worldwide voluntary federation of ISO member 
bodies. While safety was the overriding consideration, we made this 
decision due, in part, to the global standardization advantages 
associated with a harmonized standard. We stated that we anticipated 
that the ISO, which began work on an independent child restraint 
anchorage system in the early 1990's, will be adopting the draft 
standard as a final standard within the next year, and that 
incorporation of the ISO standard into the regulations of the European 
Community is likely to follow. Our rule harmonized also with a 
regulatory initiative by Transport Canada to require user-ready tether 
anchorages in vehicles sold in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ISO/DIS 13216-1, Road vehicles--Child restraint systems--
Anchorages in vehicles and attachments to anchorages--Part 1: 
Dimensions, strength requirements and general requirements, June 22, 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our final rule, we adopted most of the draft ISO standard for 
the lower bars and most of the requirements of the Canadian 
requirements for the tether anchorages. However, our final rule also 
imposed strength requirements for tether anchorages and the lower bars 
that, while essentially equivalent to the

[[Page 47567]]

requirements we proposed in our NPRM, are higher than those that are 
specified by the draft ISO and the Canadian standards.
Tether Anchorage
    The NPRM proposed that the tether anchorage would be tested in a 
static pull test. A force of 5,300 Newtons (N) would be applied by a 
belt strap that attaches to the tether anchorage, and applied in the 
forward horizontal direction. The 5,300 N force would be attained 
within 30 seconds, with an onset force rate not exceeding 135,000 N per 
second, and maintained at the 5,300 N level for one second. We proposed 
that each structural component of the anchorage must withstand the 
5,300 N force, and that there must not be any complete separation or 
failure of any anchorage component. Each tether anchorage would be 
tested separately. However, if two or more designated seating positions 
on a bench seat are equipped with a tether anchorage, separate 5,300 N 
forces would be simultaneously applied to each tether anchorage.
    The final rule adopted a static pull test using a test fixture, 
instead of a belt strap, to apply the test forces to the tether 
anchorage. The fixture has a configuration representative of a child 
restraint system. The fixture is attached to the tether anchorage at 
the fixture's top, and is attached to the vehicle seat at the fixture's 
bottom end (at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and back) 
using the vehicle's seat belt or the lower bars of a child restraint 
anchorage system. The test force is applied pulling on a cable that is 
attached to a point on the fixture. A force of 15,000 N is applied to 
the fixture, which in turn, applies the force to the three anchorage 
points (the tether anchorage and the seat belt anchorages or the lower 
bars). Since the fixture is attached to three anchorage points, only a 
portion of the 15,000 N force is actually applied to the tether 
anchorage. The 15,000 N force is attained within 30 seconds, at an 
onset force rate of not more than 135,000 N per second; and maintained 
at the 15,000 N level for one second. The final rule requires that (a) 
there must not be any point on the tether anchorage displaced more than 
125 millimeters (mm) (approximately 5 inches); and (b) there must not 
be complete separation of any anchorage component. Each tether 
anchorage is tested separately, unless two or more designated seating 
positions in a row of seats have a tether anchorage. In that case, 
NHTSA has the option of testing both tether anchorages simultaneously.
Lower Anchorages
    The NPRM proposed that the lower anchorages would also be tested in 
a static pull test using a belt strap. Each lower anchorage at a 
seating position would be tested separately from the other. A force of 
5,300 N would be applied to the anchorage in the forward horizontal 
direction. The 5,300 N force would be attained within 30 seconds, with 
an onset force rate not exceeding 135,000 N per second, and maintained 
at the 5,300 N level for ten seconds. The NPRM proposed that lower bars 
conforming to the draft ISO standard were one of the means that could 
be installed to meet the requirement to provide the lower anchorages of 
a child restraint anchorage system. The NPRM proposed requiring that no 
portion of any component attaching to the lower bar could move forward 
more than 125 mm, and that there must not be complete separation of any 
anchorage component.
    The final rule required that bars be used as the lower anchorages 
and adopted the method of testing lower bars set forth in the draft ISO 
standard. That method uses a test fixture, representing a child 
restraint system, that has attachments at the bottom end of the fixture 
(at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and back) to attach to 
the lower bars. The test force is applied by pulling on a cable that is 
attached to a point on the fixture. A horizontal force of 11,000 N is 
applied to the fixture, which in turn, simultaneously applies the force 
to the two lower bars (the tether anchor is not attached). Since the 
fixture is attached to both bars, the force is divided between them. 
The 11,000 N force is attained within 30 seconds, at an onset force 
rate of not more than 135,000 N per second; and maintained at the 
11,000 N level for ten seconds. The final rule requires that the lower 
bars must not allow a specified point on the test fixture to be 
displaced more than 125 mm during the pull. The final rule specifies 
that in the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than one 
child restraint anchorage system, NHTSA has the option of testing the 
child restraint anchorage systems simultaneously or testing the systems 
separately.

b. Key Implementation Dates

    The key implementation dates (mandatory compliance dates) in the 
March 1999 final rule were:

1. Beginning September 1, 1999--
    Motor vehicles
    Eighty (80) percent of passenger cars must have a tether anchorage 
for each of a specified number of designated seating positions. Any 
voluntarily-provided lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system, 
and any voluntarily-provided additional tether anchorages, in any 
passenger car, light truck, bus and multipurpose passenger vehicle 
(MPV) must meet the strength and other requirements of the standard.
    Child restraints
    Child restraint systems are required to comply with a more 
stringent head excursion performance requirement. Effectively, this 
means most must have top tether straps.
2. Beginning September 1, 2000--
    Motor vehicles
    All passenger cars and light trucks, buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPVs) must have specified number of tether 
anchorages.
    A specified percentage of passenger cars, and light trucks, buses 
and MPVs must have lower anchorages.
3. On or after September 1, 2002--
    Motor vehicles
    All passenger cars, and all light trucks, buses and MPVs must have 
the new lower anchorages for a specified number of seating positions.
    Child restraints
    Child restraint systems must have components that attach to the 
lower bars.

c. Rationale for the Compliance Dates for the Rule

    Our effective dates for requiring the universal child restraint 
anchorages balanced several real world needs. Manufacturers need lead 
time to develop and implement designs for the anchorage system, 
particularly those for the lower bars, and to test their vehicles for 
compliance with the standard and to so certify. However, we wanted 
manufacturers to begin to provide the anchorages as quickly as possible 
because a universal child restraint anchorage system will enhance the 
safety of child restraints by making them easier to install securely 
than by means of a vehicle's seat belt system. Our rule sought to 
balance those needs by:
    (1) Phasing-in the requirement for the lower bars over a three-year 
period, beginning in 2000 (S4.3); and
    (2) Requiring manufacturers to begin providing the user-ready upper 
anchorages on September 1, 1999 (S4.2).
    We believed that the requirement for user-ready upper anchorages 
could be

[[Page 47568]]

implemented in most passenger cars 2 beginning September 1, 
1999 and a year later in other types of vehicles because almost all new 
vehicles sold in this country already have (unexposed, non-user-ready) 
tether anchorages to meet a longstanding Canadian requirement for non-
user-ready anchorages. We also selected the September 1, 1999 date 
because it is the compliance date that Canada had adopted for user-
ready tether anchorages in new passenger cars sold in that country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirements are phased-in to apply to 80 percent of a 
manufacturer's production of passenger cars manufactured between 
September 1, 1999 and August 31, 2000, and to all passenger cars 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another need addressed by our implementation dates for the final 
rule was to assure that any child restraint anchorage system or tether 
anchorage installed in a vehicle will meet minimum performance 
requirements, regardless of whether the system was a ``required 
system'' or a ``voluntarily-installed system.'' This was done to ensure 
that all of the 3-point child restraint anchorage systems provide at 
least a minimum level of safety. Accordingly, we required that:
    (3) any child restraint anchorage system or tether anchorage 
installed in any new vehicle after September 1, 1999, must meet the 
configuration, location and strength requirements of the standard 
(S4.1).3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's document also corrects S4.1 to include marking 
requirements among those that voluntarily-installed anchorage 
systems must meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration of Final Rule

    We received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (``Alliance'') (whose members 
are BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Nissan, Toyota, 
Volkswagen, Volvo, Fiat and Isuzu), and from Honda, Volkswagen, 
Porsche, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Mitsubishi, the National 
Truck Equipment Association, Kolcraft, E-Z-On Products, Cosco, Toyota, 
Ford, the Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers, and 
Indiana Mills and Manufacturing. See NHTSA Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 
2.
    The petitioners generally embrace the underlying tenet of the rule 
that there is a need for tether anchorages and universal child 
restraint anchorage systems to improve the securement of child 
restraints in vehicles. Nevertheless, vehicle manufacturers ask us to 
reconsider certain performance and other requirements. Some of them are 
concerned about the strength requirements for the tether anchorage and 
the lower bars, and assert that: (1) There is no safety need for 
requirements as stringent as those specified; 4 (2) tether 
anchorages installed in their model year (MY) 2000 vehicles were 
designed to meet the less stringent Canadian requirements and they will 
not be able to meet the requirements in the final rule by September 1, 
1999; (3) they are unable to assure that voluntarily-installed 
anchorages planned for their MY 2000 vehicles will meet the 
requirements by September 1 of this year, and thus would have to ``tear 
out'' voluntarily-installed additional anchorages that they had already 
installed in vehicles slated for completion after September 1, 1999; 
and (4) sufficient notice and opportunity to comment was not provided 
for the requirements. The Alliance suggests that the agency either 
adopt the Canadian requirements for the tether and the draft ISO 
requirements for the lower bars, or delay the effective date for the 
rule to allow manufacturers to modify their current anchorage designs. 
These and the other petitioners also petition for reconsideration of a 
number of other issues, including issues regarding the specific test 
procedures of the rule and the application of the requirements to 
particular types of vehicles or seating positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Not all petitioners addressing this subject believe the 
strength requirements were too stringent. Petitioner E-Z-On Products 
suggest in its petition for reconsideration that we should consider 
increasing the strength requirements for the tether anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Petitions

    This document focuses on immediate problems that vehicle 
manufacturers are having in certifying compliance with requirements 
that will apply to them beginning on September 1, 1999. As noted above, 
that is the date on which they must begin equipping new passenger cars 
with tether anchorages meeting the configuration, location, strength 
and marking requirements in the March 1999 final rule. It is also the 
date on which voluntarily-installed tether anchorages and lower 
anchorage bars must meet those requirements. This document also 
addresses some other concerns as well, including suggestions for 
clarifying certain steps and procedures for testing the anchorages and 
requests to reconsider requirements of the final rule for child 
restraint systems. We will respond to the remaining issues raised in 
the petitions in separate documents that will be published in the near 
future.
    The key changes to those implementation dates made by today's final 
rule are as follows:
     From September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2001: tether 
anchorages may meet strength and other requirements (i.e., those 
specifying where anchorages may be located, and how many must be 
provided in vehicles and in what seating positions they must be 
provided) promulgated by Transport Canada instead of the requirements 
set forth in the March 1999 final rule. This option will cease to be 
available on September 1, 2001.
     From September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2002: lower anchorage 
bars may meet strength and other requirements (i.e., those specifying 
anchorage dimension and location, stow ability, and marking) set forth 
in a draft standard issued by the ISO instead of the requirements set 
forth in the March 1999 final rule. This option will cease to be 
available on September 1, 2002.

a. Universal Child Restraint Anchorage Systems for Motor Vehicles

1. Leadtime
    As noted above, two requirements relating to child restraint 
anchorage systems go into effect on September 1, 1999: (a) 
manufacturers of passenger cars must provide the user-ready tether 
anchorages; \5\ and (b) manufacturers must ensure that any tether 
anchorage or child restraint anchorage system installed in any new 
vehicle, voluntarily or pursuant to the standard, meets the 
configuration, location, strength and marking requirements of the 
standard (S4.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The requirement for passenger cars is phased-in, beginning 
September 1, 1999, with all cars required to meet the requirement as 
of September 1, 2000. The compliance date for installing user-ready 
tether anchorages in light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
and buses is September 1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the rule on the 
basis of the practicability of meeting the September 1, 1999 effective 
date requiring installation of user-ready tether anchorages in 
passenger cars, stating that they cannot, by that date, complete the 
testing that they need to do to certify that their vehicles will meet 
the requirements of the final rule. They also need more time to make 
interior trim and structural changes to the extent necessary to meet 
the strength requirements. The Alliance states that member companies 
had geared up to meet the Canadian requirements, and had completed 
certification testing in passenger cars in preparation for certifying 
to the same requirements in

[[Page 47569]]

the U.S.6 The Alliance states that the strength requirements 
of our rule necessitate vehicle structure and interior trim changes and 
that these involve ``significant tooling and lead time'' to implement. 
Thus, many of their passenger car tether anchorage designs cannot be 
modified in time to meet the compliance date. The Alliance suggests 
that the agency either (a) Adopt the Canadian requirements for the 
tether and the draft ISO requirements for the lower bars, or (b) ``at a 
minimum delay the effective date for tether and child restraint lower 
anchors for one year to allow manufacturers time to modify their 
current anchor designs to meet these new, unique requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The most significant differences between the Canadian 
requirements and those in our final rule are:
    --the magnitude of the force that is applied to the tether 
anchorage (10,000 N, instead of 15,000 N);
    --the rate that the force is applied to a tether anchorage in a 
compliance test (Canada permits the manufacturer to specify the 
force application rate, while under our test procedure NHTSA 
specifies the rate; the rate of force application can affect the 
stringency of the test);
    --the number of tether anchorages required in multipurpose 
passenger vehicles that have five or fewer seats (Canada requires 
two tether anchorages, while we require three, in vehicles that have 
three or more seating positions rearward of the driver); and
    --the requirement to provide a tether anchorage at a center rear 
seating position (Canada does not have such a requirement, while we 
do).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, petitioners state that practicability problems arise 
also from the requirement in S4.1 that manufacturers must ensure that 
any tether anchorage or child restraint anchorage system voluntarily 
installed in any new vehicle after September 1, 1999 meets the 
performance requirements of the standard. The Alliance states that 
member companies had completed certification testing in multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses to comply voluntarily with the 
tether anchorage requirements earlier than the September 2000 
compliance date. Because the voluntarily-installed anchorages would not 
meet the standard's requirements by September 1, 1999 as they are 
required to under S4.1, some manufacturers would be forced to remove 
anchorages in vehicles that will be completed after September 1, 1999, 
or prevented from installing such anchorages in those vehicles, ``thus 
depriving customers of [the anchorages'] safety benefit.'' Volkswagen 
(VW) states in its separate petition that it already provides lower 
anchorages designed to the draft ISO standard in its vehicles. That 
petitioner states: ``if NHTSA * * * continues to maintain the 
requirement in S4.1, then the provision of the systems would have to be 
terminated.'' VW and the Alliance suggest that S4.1 be amended so that 
voluntary systems complying with the draft ISO standard 7 
(for the lower bars) and with Canadian requirements (for the tether 
anchorage) are permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It is noted that ISO has not completed finalization of its 
draft standard. On May 3, 1999, ISO revised the draft again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. Tether anchorage. NHTSA has reviewed the issues raised by the 
petitioners relating to whether it is practicable to meet the September 
1, 1999 effective date for installing tether anchorages that satisfy 
the requirements of the March 1999 final rule. The agency concludes 
that the vehicle manufacturers are capable of meeting the strength 
requirements in our March 1999 final rule for the tether anchorage with 
sufficient leadtime. In fact, data from Transport Canada indicates that 
many vehicles already have tether anchorages that can meet the 15,000 N 
requirement. Transport Canada tested a series of 15 vehicles (1999 
models), using the test procedures of its tether anchorage standard, 
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 210.1, to measure loads 
attained at tether anchorages of these vehicles. Tether anchorages of 
12 of these vehicles did not fail when the applied load (applied by 
means of a belt strap) reached a load ranging from 7,450 N to 7,884 N. 
We have determined that applying a horizontal 15,000 N force to the 
SFAD test fixtures results in forces of about 5,400 N applied 
horizontally to the tether anchorage using SFAD 1, and about 7,000 N 
applied horizontally to that anchorage using SFAD 2. (The difference is 
primarily due to differences between SFAD 1 and SFAD 2 as to the 
location of Point X on the test devices. Point X is where the force is 
applied to the SFAD.) Thus, tether anchorages on most of the vehicles 
tested by Canada sustained loads greater than the load that is 
specified in our March 1999 final rule. Tether anchorages of three of 
the 15 vehicles tested by Canada sustained between 6,979 N to 7,385 N. 
The tether anchorages on these vehicle may or may not need to be 
reinforced to meet our requirement. (These data were presented by 
Transport Canada at a March 31, 1999 meeting with manufacturers in 
Ottawa.)
    While many vehicles may already meet the strength requirement of 
the March 1999 final rule, a number of manufacturers have said that 
they need time to run certification tests and analyses based on the 
requirements of our final rule, as opposed to the Canadian 
requirements. Some vehicle structure and trim might also have to be 
changed to meet the strength requirements of the final rule. Thus, 
while manufacturers that do not already comply can achieve the 15,000 N 
performance required of tether anchorages in the near future, they will 
need more time than the lead time provided in the final rule to make 
any necessary changes and certify compliance of their vehicles with the 
requirements of the final rule.
    At the same time, user-ready tether anchorages installed as soon as 
possible would serve a child passenger safety need because they will 
increase the likelihood that parents will attach a top tether on the 
child restraint system. A tethered child restraint offers improved 
protection against head impact in a crash. A tether anchorage that 
complies with the Canadian strength requirement will be better than no 
tether anchorage at all (which would be the end result of manufacturers 
removing voluntarily installed tether anchorages after September 1, 
1999). Accordingly, we are amending the standard to permit 
manufacturers the option of installing tether anchorages that meet 
Canada's strength requirements, for a two-year interim period (until 
August 31, 2001). During the interim, manufacturers can choose to meet 
the Canadian requirements. The most significant differences between the 
Canadian requirements and those in our final rule are Canada's 
specification of a lower force (10,000 N, instead of 15,000 N) and 
Canada's method of applying the force (permitting the manufacturer the 
option of specifying the force application rate, instead of specifying 
a range of application rates that the agency could use). During the 
interim, manufacturers can assess their vehicles' ability to comply 
with the 15,000 N force requirement and make structural changes to 
their vehicles, as needed. Beginning September 1, 2001, all vehicles 
will have to meet the 15,000 N strength requirement for all tether 
anchorages, whether installed voluntarily or pursuant to our 
standard.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Some petitioners suggest that the 15,000 N requirement is 
unnecessary because Transport Canada adopted a 10,000 N requirement 
and because, so they believe, a tether meeting Canada's requirements 
will adequately withstand the forces that are imposed on a tether 
anchorage in a crash. On the other hand, one petitioner (E-Z-On 
Products) suggests that Canada's strength requirement should be 
increased to a higher level, to adequately withstand forces 
generated by children weighing 120 pounds or more.
    To enable us to publish this document regarding the September 1, 
1999 effective date of our rule as quickly as possible, we have 
deferred our response to those comments to a later date. We are 
evaluating these comments and will respond to them and to other 
issues not addressed by today's document in a later document. For 
the purposes of this notice, we believe that the 15,000 N strength 
requirement is preferable to the 10,000 N requirement, for the 
reasons discussed in the March 1999 final rule. Transport Canada has 
publicly stated that it too is considering increasing its tether 
strength requirement to 15,000 N, based on data obtained since that 
country's implementation of its user-ready tether anchorage 
requirement (see technical proposal, Canada Gazette Part I, March 6, 
1999).
    While the 15,000 N strength requirement is preferable in the 
long run, we are balancing the benefits associated with tether 
anchorages meeting only the Canadian requirements in the short run 
against the possibility of there being no tether anchorages. Tether 
anchorages meeting the Canadian requirement will still provide an 
improvement to parents who might have attached a tether but did not 
do so because a user-ready anchorage was not present in the vehicle. 
In the short term, we are adopting an alternative allowing 
compliance with a lesser requirement as a practicable temporary 
approach that would reap benefits not otherwise obtainable during 
the interim.

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

[[Page 47570]]

    The Alliance raises other issues related to their members' 
designing and manufacturing vehicles to meet the requirements 
established by Transport Canada for tether anchorages. Transport Canada 
requires only two tether anchorages in MPVs with five or fewer 
designated seating positions, while our final rule requires three 
tether anchorages in these vehicles (the same number of tether 
anchorages required of passenger cars). (For convenience, since most 
MPVs with fewer than 6 seating positions are sport utility vehicles 
(SUVs), we will refer to those MPVs as SUVs.) The Alliance states that 
Transport Canada's requirement to mandate only two tether anchorages 
for SUVs was based on comments submitted to it ``which stated that the 
seating configurations and vehicle design constraints made the mandate 
of three tether anchors in the rear seat impracticable for such 
vehicles.'' Some manufacturers state in their owner's manual not to 
install child restraints in the center position. The petitioner asks 
that we amend our standard to require only two tether anchorages for 
MPVs with five or fewer designated seating positions.
    In evaluating this suggestion, we note that manufacturers have not 
submitted information to NHTSA that explains why SUVs, as a vehicle 
class, should have fewer tether anchorages than passenger cars or why a 
third tether anchor in the rear seat of these vehicles is 
impracticable. SUVs are used as passenger-carrying vehicles and are 
increasing in popularity. Further, we note that the occupancy rate of 
SUVs for children under 12 in the right front seat is 2.4 times that of 
passenger cars. We also note that Transport Canada has indicated that 
it might be revisiting this issue concerning the number of tether 
anchorages it should require in SUVs. In view of the above information 
and the absence of information as to why SUVs should have fewer tether 
anchorages than passenger cars, we have decided to retain the 
requirement for three tether anchorages in the long run. However, to 
provide manufacturers with lead time to design and manufacture SUVs 
with three anchorages, this rule allows manufacturers to provide only 
two tether anchorages until August 31, 2001. Beginning September 1, 
2001, three tether anchorages will have to be provided, if there are at 
least three rear designated seating positions.
    The Alliance also petitioned for reconsideration of our requirement 
that a tether anchorage must be installed at a designated seating 
position other than an outboard seating position, if the vehicle has 
such a (center) seating position. Transport Canada does not have a 
comparable requirement. The petitioner states that not all MPVs 
scheduled for introduction by the 2001 model year (i.e., September 1, 
2000) have designs that meet the requirement. Petitioner also states 
that: ``this requirement is not practical for all [MPVs with six or 
more designated seating positions]. For example, a child restraint 
installed in the center position will block ingress/egress for the 
third row outboard seating position in certain vehicles.''
    NHTSA is relieving manufacturers from the requirement that one of 
the tether anchorages must be at a center seating position, until 
September 1, 2001. As a practical matter, this relief will only affect 
manufacturers of vehicles with more than three rear designated seating 
positions, i.e., vehicles other than passenger cars. Vehicles with 
three rear designated seating positions must be equipped with three 
tether anchorages. In passenger cars, the rear seat only has at most 
three rear designated seating positions, so a center rear seat--
assuming there is one--will be equipped with a tether anchorage. This 
amendment gives manufacturers (primarily of vehicles other than 
passenger cars) until September 1, 2001 to design and manufacture 
vehicles with a tether anchorage in a center seat. Until that date, 
manufacturers will have the option of not providing a tether anchorage 
at a center seating position, assuming they can provide the requisite 
number of tether anchorages without equipping a center position. On or 
after that date, a tether anchorage must be provided at a center (i.e., 
non-outboard) seating position, in vehicles with such a 
position.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The final rule required a tether at a non-outboard seating 
position (a center position) to address the concerns of many 
commenters that the center rear seating position in cars would not 
have an improved means of attaching child restraints, even though 
that is the position many parents in this country prefer to place 
their child. (This belief is shared by the petitioner. Commenting on 
a different issue, the Alliance stated on page 17 of its petition 
for reconsideration that ``Alliance members believe that many 
customers will want the flexibility to install a child restraint at 
the center rear seat position.  .  .'') We believe that many parents 
will want to place their child in a non-outboard seating position in 
MPVs as well. These parents will either be frustrated if an improved 
means of attaching child restraints is not provided at a center 
position, and/or may use the non-tethered center position anyway, 
and will not be able to attain for their child the improved safety 
benefits of a tethered child restraint. As for practical problems 
with blocking ingress/egress for the third row, we believe the 
tether can be located to avoid such blockage. For example, the 
tether anchor could be attached to the ceiling or to the back of the 
lower part of the seat structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Lower anchorages.This final rule also specifies that, from 
September 1, 1999 until August 31, 2002, manufacturers installing the 
lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system will have available a 
compliance option. They may meet either all the requirements for lower 
anchorages in our March 1999 final rule, or requirements in the draft 
ISO standard for alternative configuration, location, strength and 
marking requirements, and the requirements in our March 1999 final rule 
on all other matters.10 As discussed in section III.a.1.C of 
this preamble, a manufacturer's selection of a compliance option will 
be irrevocable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The most significant differences between the draft ISO 
requirements for the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage 
systems and those in our final rule are:
    a. the magnitude of the force that is applied to the lower 
anchorages (11,000 N, instead of 8,000 N);
    b. the rate that the force is applied to the lower anchorages in 
a compliance test (the draft ISO standard specifies that the force 
is fully applied within a time period of two seconds or less, while 
under our test procedure NHTSA specifies the rate and the time 
period for full application of the force may be up to 30 seconds);
    c. the period of time that the force is held (the draft ISO 
standard specifies that the 8,000 N force is held for a period of 
0.25 seconds, while we specify that it is held for 10 seconds); and
    d. the allowance of stowable/foldable anchorages (the draft ISO 
standard permits these anchorages, while our final rule has a 
requirement that precludes a stowable/foldable feature, S9.1.1(g)).
    e. Other differences between our rule and the draft ISO standard 
are discussed in the March 1999 final rule at 43 FR 10801-10802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These amendments are made to provide manufacturers lead time to 
develop lower anchorages that meet the strength requirements of our 
standard. Lower anchorages meeting the draft ISO requirements will 
provide an improved means of attaching child restraints. While the 
11,000 N strength

[[Page 47571]]

requirement is preferable to the ISO 8,000 N requirement, we are 
balancing the benefits associated with lower anchorages meeting the 
draft ISO requirements in the short run against the possibility of 
there being no improved means of attaching child restraints. Lower 
anchorages meeting the draft ISO requirements will still provide an 
improvement to parents who have difficulty attaching a child restraint 
correctly in a vehicle or whose vehicle seats are incompatible with 
child restraints. In the short term, we are adopting an alternative 
allowing compliance with a lesser requirement as a practicable 
temporary approach that would reap benefits not otherwise obtainable 
during the interim. The agency is thus amending the standard to enable 
manufacturers to provide child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles 
as quickly as possible.
    Many of the petitioners suggested that we permit rigid but 
stowable/fold-away lower anchorages, as allowed in the draft ISO 
standard. These petitioners have been developing stowable/fold-away 
lower anchorages and believed that our final rule was going to permit 
these anchorages to be installed in vehicles. Apparently these 
petitioners believed that the final rule would incorporate all aspects 
of the draft ISO standard, including provisions in the draft standard 
for stowable anchorages. The draft standard does not expressly allow 
stowable anchorages, but instead occasionally refers to various 
requirements that lower anchorages have to meet while in a stored and/
or ``deployed'' condition. We are permitting stowable/fold-away anchors 
during this interim period (until August 31, 2002) within which 
manufacturer may meet the requirements of the draft ISO standard.
    Specifications in the draft ISO standard that we have adopted in 
this final rule state that the 8,000 N force that is applied in the 
forward pull test and the 5,000 N force that is applied in the lateral 
pull test is maintained for a period of 0.25 seconds  0.05 
seconds. We interpret this hold period to mean that we may hold the 
maximum force for several seconds or longer; however, the lower 
anchorages must withstand the required force (i.e., meet the 125 mm 
displacement limit) only for up to 0.30 seconds.
    Several petitions ask us to reconsider the need for the 11,000 N 
strength requirement for the lower anchorages. The 11,000 N is applied 
to the lower anchorages by way of a test fixture that attaches to both 
lower anchorages. NHTSA will respond to these issues in a subsequent 
document responding to other issues in the petitions. In addition, we 
will address suggestions concerning the test procedure used to test the 
lower anchorages that are not addressed by today's document.
    C. General issues about the options. This rule specifies that a 
manufacturer's selection of a compliance option must be made prior to, 
or at the time of vehicle certification and that selection is 
irrevocable for that vehicle. The rationale for such a requirement was 
explained in the March 1999 final rule as well as in other recent 
agency rulemakings. To summarize, where a safety standard provides 
manufacturers more than one compliance option, the agency needs to know 
which option has been selected in order to conduct a compliance test. 
Moreover, based on previous experience with enforcing standards that 
include compliance options, the agency is aware that a manufacturer 
confronted with an apparent noncompliance for the option it has 
selected (based on a compliance test) may respond by arguing that its 
vehicles comply with a different option for which the agency has not 
conducted a compliance test. This response creates obvious difficulties 
for the agency in managing its available resources for carrying out its 
enforcement responsibilities, e.g., the possible need to conduct 
multiple compliance tests for first one compliance option, then 
another, to determine whether there is a noncompliance. To address this 
problem, the agency is requiring that where manufacturer options are 
specified, the manufacturer must select the option by the time it 
certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option 
for the vehicle. This will mean that failure to comply with the 
selected option will constitute a noncompliance regardless of whether a 
vehicle complies with another option. (Of course, as we have noted in 
other rulemaking proceedings, a manufacturer may petition for an 
exemption from the recall requirements of the statute on the basis that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety.)
    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    While we generally complied with those requirements in drafting 
this document, we did not make any significant changes to the Canadian 
and ISO provisions regarding child restraint anchorage systems in 
adding them to Standard No. 225. Since those additions are only 
temporary, we did not attempt to determine whether there are any 
significant opportunities for simplification or clarification of those 
provisions. If anyone believes that simplification or clarification of 
any of those provisions, or of any other part of the regulatory text, 
is necessary, please write and tell us.

b. Harmonization

    The Alliance also petitioned for reconsideration of the final rule 
based on ``the lack of harmonization with other child restraint anchor 
activities around the world.'' Petitioner states that the rule creates 
a unique set of performance requirements that is not applied anywhere 
else in the world and is not consistent with the Canadian requirements 
for the tether or draft ISO requirements for the lower bars.
    The most significant differences between the Canadian requirements 
for tether anchorages and those in our final rule are set forth in 
footnote 6, supra, and concern the magnitude of the force that is 
applied to the tether anchorage and the rate that the force is applied 
to a tether anchorage in a compliance test. The most significant 
differences between the draft ISO requirements for the lower anchorages 
of child restraint anchorage systems and those in our final rule are 
set forth in footnote 10, supra, and relate to the magnitude of the 
force that is applied to the lower anchorages, the rate that the force 
is applied in a compliance test, and the period of time that the force 
is held.
    We believe that our final rule fully conforms to the agency's 
policies and priorities in this area. The agency's policy is to advance 
vehicle safety by identifying and adopting best safety practices from 
around the world and by developing new standards reflecting 
technological advances and current and anticipated safety problems. 
Thus, while we seek to harmonize our safety standards with those of 
other countries, we do so only to the extent consistent

[[Page 47572]]

with preserving our ability to adopt standards that meet U.S. vehicle 
safety needs. ``Statement of Policy: NHTSA Priorities and Public 
Participation in the Implementation of the UN/ECE 1998 Agreement on 
Global Technical Regulations'' (January 5, 1999, 64 FR 563). In our 
effort to harmonize with the Canadian requirements for the tether 
anchorage and the draft ISO requirements for the lower anchorages, we 
undertook an independent analysis of the basis for the strength 
requirements for the respective anchorages. We were not aware of any 
information warranting a 10,000 N force requirement for the tether. The 
only data we had indicate that the level should be 15,000 N. Further, 
as we said in the preamble to the final rule, we did not know why the 
drafters of the draft ISO standard chose the 8,000 N requirement. We 
also explained in the final rule document our reasons for differing 
from the specifications in the draft ISO standard for applying the 
force to the lower anchorages in the compliance test. That we set the 
performance requirements based on an independent analyses is fully 
consistent with NHTSA's policies and priorities on international 
harmonization.
    We also note that with regard to the strength requirements for the 
lower bars, the draft ISO standard has not yet been adopted in final 
form by any country. The draft ISO standard is still undergoing 
revision by the working group charged with developing the standard. 
Because no country has adopted strength or any other requirements for 
the lower bars, our 11,000 N requirement, the first of its kind, is not 
discordant with any other standard. We should also note that our 
requirements are generally not mutually exclusive from those of Canada 
for tether anchorages and those of the draft ISO standard for the lower 
bars. Anchorages that are produced to meet the requirements of our 
March 1999 final rule will meet all the requirements of the Canadian 
and draft ISO standards.
3. Notice and Opportunity To Comment
    The Alliance petitioned the agency to reconsider the strength test 
procedures and requirements for tether anchorages and the lower 
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system. The Alliance argues 
that the agency included these provisions in the final rule without 
first giving the public an opportunity to comment on the provisions and 
thus violated the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act. The Alliance states that:

[T]he test procedures and strength requirements for the top tether 
anchors and the test procedures for lower anchors were neither 
proposed in the NPRM nor logically grow from it. The NPRM published 
on February 20, 1997 discussed the strength requirement and test 
procedure for top tethers in Part 571.210b, Section S4.4. It states 
``. . . the tether anchorage with the tether anchorage hardware 
installed shall, when tested in accordance with S5, withstand a 
force of 5,300 N. There shall be no complete separation or failure 
of any anchorage component.'' The final rule, in Section 6.3 imposes 
a 125 mm deflection requirement that was not proposed or discussed 
in the NPRM. In addition, the final rule, in Section 8 imposes a 
test procedure that applies a 15,000 N force to a test fixture which 
was not proposed or discussed in the NPRM.
    The NPRM discusses the test procedure for lower anchorages in 
Part 571.210a, Section S5. It states ``Test each lower anchorage 
separately, with or without connectors provided with the vehicle. 
Apply a force of 5,300 N to each anchorage in the forward horizontal 
direction . . .'' The final rule, in Section 11, imposes a test 
procedure which applies an 11,000 N force to a test fixture. This 
test procedure is not proposed or discussed in the NPRM.

    The agency disagrees with the Alliance. The test method adopted in 
the final rule is similar to one of two alternative test methods 
discussed in the NPRM in connection with assessing the real-world 
performance of child restraint anchorage systems. The first approach 
was to apply test forces to all anchorages, simultaneously, by means of 
a child restraint. This method would also have tested child restraints 
for compliance with Standard No. 213 by attaching the child restraint 
to an actual vehicle anchorage system. Testing actual vehicle anchorage 
systems with actual child restraints would have increased the real-
world representativeness of the test method. However, in the section of 
the NPRM entitled ``Proposal for New Vehicle Standard, Highlights of 
Proposal,'' we acknowledged that there were difficulties with this 
approach:

    If vehicles were tested with actual child seats, and vice versa, 
and if a vehicle anchorage system, for example, were found to fail 
the proposed requirements, an issue could arise as to whether the 
failure was with the vehicle system, or with the child seat attached 
to the vehicle system. To avoid this complication, the compliance 
tests must be as controlled as possible to remove unknown influences 
on the performance of regulated parts.

62 FR 7870.
    Because NHTSA was concerned that testing a vehicle anchorage system 
with an actual child restraint could possibly introduce factors that 
could complicate enforcement efforts, the agency tentatively rejected 
that alternative. We favored an alternative approach, which was to test 
each anchor of a child restraint anchorage system individually by 
attaching a belt strap to the anchor and pulling it at a specified 
force. We discussed in the NPRM our tentative conclusion that this 
alternative would replicate real-world performance, but acknowledged 
that this approach also had limitations:

    A potential but seemingly necessary limitation in the proposed 
compliance tests is that the vehicle system is statically tested by 
devices that replicate the loads imposed by a child seat, and a 
child restraint is dynamically tested on a seat assembly simulating 
a vehicle seat. That is, an actual vehicle anchorage system would 
not be tested with an actual child restraint, and vice versa. This 
is to avoid possibly complicating enforcement efforts if an apparent 
failure arises in a compliance test. . . .
    While the actual vehicle-to-child seat attachment would not be 
tested, NHTSA believes that the performance obtained in the 
compliance test will reflect the real-world performance of the 
anchorage system and the child restraint. This is because the 
geometry of the belts and latchplates primarily responsible for the 
vehicle-to-child seat interface would be precisely specified by this 
proposal. These components would have to be provided on vehicles and 
child seats precisely as specified in the standards. In turn, these 
components, in the same geometry as that specified in the standards, 
would be used in the compliance tests. Thus, the vehicle-to-child 
seat interface should be adequately tested.

Id.
    Since use of the straps would avoid the problems associated with 
use of child restraint systems, although at the cost of some loss of 
real-world representativeness, we proposed a strength requirement and a 
static pull test for the tether anchorage that were the same as the 
then-Canadian proposal for user-ready tether anchorages. The agency 
proposed that the anchorage would have to withstand a force of not less 
than 5,300 N, applied to the tether anchorage by a belt strap (see I.a. 
of this preamble, supra, for discussion of the provisions for the 
strength requirements in the NPRM and final rule). In the section of 
the NPRM entitled ``Proposal for New Vehicle Standard, Performance,'' 
the agency requested comments ``on whether more specificity is needed 
for these strength requirements and on whether other performance 
requirements should be included in the standard.'' 62 FR 7873.
    In the final rule, we decided to apply the test forces to child 
restraint anchorage systems by means of surrogates for child restraint 
systems. We adopted use of the surrogates because they better simulate 
the real-

[[Page 47573]]

world interaction between a child restraint and the vehicle anchorages 
than testing the anchorages individually by means of a belt strap.
    The adopted approach is very similar to the one we tentatively 
rejected in the NPRM, i.e., the one that used actual child restraint 
systems to apply the test forces. We had tentatively rejected that 
approach out of concern that using child restraints in the compliance 
test would introduce too many additional variables into the compliance 
testing process. The decision to substitute child restraint surrogates 
for actual child restraint systems adequately addressed the problem of 
uncontrollable factors. The surrogates, called ``static force 
application devices (SFADs)'' in the final rule, distribute the forces 
generated in a crash as a child restraint does in dynamic crash 
testing. However, because they are controlled test devices, their use 
in compliance testing does not introduce the same potential concerns 
noted above that using an actual child restraint could pose. In the 
final rule, thus, we balanced the concerns underlying the interest 
expressed in the NPRM in using actual child restraints to more 
assuredly obtain test results related to real world performance with 
the concerns also expressed in the NPRM in having the test be as 
controlled as possible to remove unknown influences on the test 
results.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Standard No. 210 also uses test devices to apply test loads 
to seat belt assembly anchorages. The devices are a pelvic body 
block that represents a human pelvis and a torso block that 
represents a human upper torso. Prior to our March 1999 final rule, 
seat belts and seat belt anchorages were the standardized anchorage 
system used to anchor child restraints in vehicles. The approach 
taken by our March 1999 final rule, to use a test device to apply 
the loads, is logically related to the method now used to test the 
current anchorage system for child restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of child restraint surrogates to test child restraint 
anchorage systems in vehicles was strongly supported by the commenters. 
Many vehicle manufacturers suggested that applying the load, by way of 
a child restraint surrogate, to all three anchorages simultaneously 
better evaluates how the tether anchorage would perform in the real 
world than by testing the anchorages individually. GM suggested that 
using a test fixture representative of a child restraint to apply a 
test force is a more relevant measure of child restraint excursion than 
the proposal. The fixture it suggested was the SFAD 1 fixture (which GM 
calls ``the Structural Fixture'') ultimately adopted by our final rule. 
``By using the Structural Fixture, the displacement of the CRS [child 
restraint system] due to structural deformation of the anchorages is 
more accurately demonstrated.'' (GM comment, page 8, and Attachment E 
thereto, page 1, May 21, 1997, Item No. 96-095-N03-027 in Docket No. 
96-095-N03.) GM and Ford suggested that loading all three anchorages at 
one time (the two lower anchorages and the top tether anchorage) is the 
most appropriate method to evaluate in a static load test how a child 
restraint will perform dynamically in limiting forward excursion.
    The fixtures we selected were jointly developed by the vehicle 
manufacturers and Transport Canada for use in testing child restraint 
anchorages in Canadian vehicles. Similar to this agency, Transport 
Canada will use the SFAD 1 fixture to test tether anchorages at a 
seating position that does not have the lower bars of a child restraint 
anchorage system. (The fixture is attached at its bottom, at the 
vehicle seat bight, by the vehicle's seat belt.) The other fixture, 
``SFAD 2,'' will be used to test tether anchorages at a seating 
position that has the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system. 
SFAD 2 is from the draft ISO standard ISO/DIS 13216-1. Both of these 
fixtures were discussed for use in Canada's tether anchorage regulation 
at a September 11, 1998 meeting between Canadian and US representatives 
of vehicle and child restraint manufacturers and Canadian officials. 
The meeting was organized by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' 
Association (CVMA). We placed a memorandum describing what we were 
informed about the meeting into the docket; see 96-95-N3-00071, dated 
October 31, 1997, as corrected in 96-95-N3-00071A, dated July 20, 1999.
    The magnitude of the load that is to be applied to each test 
fixture (15,000 N) is essentially equivalent to the magnitude of the 
load that was proposed in the NPRM. Applying a horizontal 15,000 N 
force to the SFAD 1 fixture, which in turn applies the load to three 
anchor points on the vehicle (one of which is the tether anchor), 
results in a horizontal force of about 5,400 N applied to the tether 
anchorage, assuming no interference of the fixture with other vehicle 
components. This was explained in the final rule, 64 FR 10808. (``This 
final rule has increased this [the proposed strength requirement of 
5,300 N applied horizontally to an individual anchor] to 15,000 N to 
reflect the use of the fixture in testing tether anchorages.'') 
Applying a horizontal 15,000 N force to SFAD 2, which in turn applies 
the load to three anchor points on the vehicle, results in a horizontal 
force of about 7,000 N applied to the tether anchorage, which is only 
about 30 percent higher than the horizontal 5,300 N proposed in the 
NPRM. In addition, as noted in the preamble to the final rule, we also 
chose the force level because test data indicated that it is needed to 
help ensure that tether anchorages will be able to bear the loads 
generated by children in forward-facing child restraints (64 FR 10808).
    In the final rule, we adopted a performance measure based on the 
amount of deflection, i.e., it specified that tether anchorages must 
not deflect such that a point on a test fixture moves more than 125 mm 
during the application of test forces. We adopted the deflection limit 
because it is a more objective measure of performance than the 
requirement originally proposed in the NPRM, i.e., that an anchorage 
``withstand'' the required force. The NPRM expressly requested comments 
as to whether the ``withstand'' requirement and the other strength 
requirements should be more specific, i.e., more objective. 62 FR 7873. 
GM suggested in its comment to the NPRM that measuring movement of the 
child restraint test fixture is a more relevant measure of child 
restraint excursion. GM suggested in its comment that a final rule 
require that a ``point I'' on the fixture must not displace more than 
125 mm longitudinally from its initial position. Finally, the 125 mm 
deflection requirement was proposed in the NPRM as the proposed 
performance requirement for the two lower anchorages of the child 
restraint anchorage system. Because those lower anchorages and the 
tether anchorage together constitute a ``child restraint anchorage 
system,'' it was a logical outgrowth of the NPRM that all three are 
subject to the same deflection limit as a measure of acceptable 
performance. By giving the public notice of the subjects and issues 
being considered, and adopting changes that are a logical outgrowth of 
the NPRM, the agency fully satisfied the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
    With regard to the lower anchorages, we proposed that they could 
consist of either a flexible latchplate system or a rigid bar anchorage 
system (the system permitted by the draft ISO standard). Since the 
testing of those systems presented essentially the same problems as 
testing tether anchorages, we resolved those problems in the same way. 
We tentatively rejected the use of child restraint systems to apply 
test forces simultaneously to the lower anchorages and proposed instead 
to apply test forces separately by means of a strap. Further, our 
statements in the NPRM provided notice that we were determining the 
appropriate level of

[[Page 47574]]

performance to mandate for the lower anchorages, and that the 
requirements and procedures of the draft ISO standard were being 
considered.
    In response, a number of commenters urged us to adopt use of the 
test fixture, representing a child restraint system, specified in the 
draft ISO standard for the purpose of applying an 8,000 N force to the 
lower anchorages. Comments were also provided on the levels of force 
that should be applied to the anchorages, and the length of time those 
should be held.
    The procedures and requirements we adopted for the lower anchorages 
are a logical outgrowth of the proposal. The test procedures we adopted 
for testing the rigid bars are directly based on those in the draft ISO 
standard. These procedures include use of a test fixture that applies 
test loads to the two lower anchorages simultaneously, rather than 
individually. For the reasons discussed above with respect to tether 
anchorages, use of a test fixture is preferable both to testing the 
lower anchorages separately using a strap and to testing them 
simultaneously using actual child restraint systems. Finally, the 
magnitude of the load that the final rule applies to the lower 
anchorages simultaneously by way of the fixture (11,000 N) is almost 
the same as the sum of the horizontal loads (10,600 N) that we proposed 
in the NPRM for testing the strength of the lower anchorages (5,300 N 
applied horizontally to each lower anchorage). We note that that force 
level is also supported by test data (see discussion in preamble to 
final rule, 64 FR 10805).
    The Alliance also states that we did not provide notice and an 
opportunity to comment on the requirement in the final rule to provide 
three tether anchorages. The petitioner states:

    The agency proposal would have had the effect of requiring only 
two tether anchors, at seating positions with lower anchors. Thus 
the agency has provided no notice of a requirement for a third 
anchor at the center seat position, and no lead time.

We disagree with the Alliance that about the adequacy of notice. The 
NPRM requested comments on the number of anchorage systems we should 
require. The agency stated in the NPRM:

    There was no consensus among the [14 rulemaking] petitioners as 
to the number of child restraint anchorage systems that should be 
required and where in the rear they should be. Many believe that the 
system should be installed at each of the outermost designated 
seating positions of the second row (and a tether anchorage in the 
rear lap-belt center position). The Japanese vehicle manufacturers 
believe that only one rear seat position should be required to have 
the system. Fisher-Price, a child restraint manufacturer, believes 
that the rear center seating position is recognized as the safest 
and that the system should therefore be required there. * * * NHTSA 
has tentatively determined that each vehicle with a rear seat should 
have at least two rear seating positions that can properly hold a 
child restraint system. The agency is concerned whether there is a 
need for an anchorage system at more than two seating positions. 
NHTSA requests information on this issue, such as demographic data 
on the number of children in child restraints typically transported 
in a family vehicle. * * * This proposal does not specify that both 
anchorage systems would have to be provided at an outboard position. 
In some vehicles with large interiors, it may be possible to install 
one of the required systems in a center seating position.* * *

62 FR 7871.
    These statements in the preamble to the NPRM provided clear notice 
that we were exploring alternatives to the proposed number of required 
child restraint anchorage systems. The notice specifically raised the 
issues of requiring a tether anchorage in a center rear seating 
position, of providing a tether anchorage at the location (center rear 
seat) preferred by many parents for placing a child, and of how many 
improved attachment systems are needed. Many commenters addressed the 
issue of how many seating positions should have a child restraint 
anchorage system, with most suggesting that an additional (i.e., third) 
tether anchor should be required (if not a full child restraint 
anchorage system). From these comments, we learned that many parents 
will want an improved means of attaching child restraints in the center 
rear seating position. We did not require that one of the two full 
child restraint anchorage systems be installed in the rear center 
position because it may be difficult to fit the lower anchorages of two 
child restraint anchorage systems adjacent to each other in the rear 
seat of small vehicles. However, we decided that a tether anchorage at 
the center rear position will improve the attachment of child 
restraints at that desired position and will provide parents with 
flexibility in deciding where they restrain their children. Based on 
the foregoing, we conclude that requiring a third tether anchorage and 
one at a center seating position was a logical outgrowth of the NPRM 
and that the agency fully satisfied the requirements of the APA.
4. Other issues
    A. Procedures for testing tether anchorages. This section responds 
to suggestions in some of the petitions for reconsideration for 
amending the final rule's test conditions and procedures for testing 
tether anchorages. Some petitioners believe that some of the test 
conditions and procedures could be clearer and made more objective.
    We have decided to adopt some of the suggestions and not adopt 
others. The test conditions and procedures discussed in this section of 
the document are those set forth in S7 and S8 of the final rule to test 
tether anchorages that are certified as meeting the requirements of the 
March 1999 final rule. As discussed today in Section III, above, until 
September 1, 2001, manufacturers have the option of certifying their 
tether anchorages to the requirements set by Transport Canada. Such 
tethers will be tested according to the conditions and procedures in 
the Canadian standard.
    The Alliance suggests several changes to S8.1 of the final rule, 
which specifies how the 15,000 N force will be applied to the tether 
anchorage. Petitioner suggests that the initial angle of pull specified 
in S8.1.(c)(2) should be 10 5 degrees, rather than ``not 
more than 5 degrees.'' Petitioner explains that the angle of pull in 
the final rule can cause the force application cable to rub on the SFAD 
test device, thus potentially affecting the force on the tether strap. 
NHTSA has made the suggested change. Interference of the SFAD on the 
cable could affect the loads that are actually applied to the tether 
anchorage, which is undesirable. Increasing the angle of pull to 10 
5 degrees, from not more than 5 degrees, will eliminate the 
potential for interference and will not significantly affect the 
magnitude of the load applied to the device (the horizontal component 
of the applied load may be reduced by about 3 percent).
    The Alliance suggests other changes to the manner in which the test 
force is applied to the tether anchorage. Petitioner suggests that 
S8.1(c)(3) be amended to clarify that the requisite force is held for 
one second, and not longer. We have made this change. Petitioner also 
suggests that S8.1(c)(3) should permit manufacturers to select the time 
period for application of the test force, as long as it is within the 
30-second time limit. Such an amendment would permit the manufacturer 
to load the tether anchorage with the maximum 15,000 N load in a short 
period of time (relative to the 30-second time limit), e.g., 3 to 5 
seconds. The petitioner states that Canada allows the vehicle 
manufacturer to select the time period for application of the test 
force, as long as the period is within the 30-second time limit, and 
will use the manufacturer's selected force application time period in 
compliance

[[Page 47575]]

testing. (We have confirmed with Transport Canada that this is 
correct.)
    The Alliance also questioned the absence of a specified rate of 
increase of force during the test:

    Because S8.1(c)(3) does not specify a linear increase in force 
(or any other force/time profile), . . . [does] the agency mean to 
specify a linear increase in force? Or does the agency intend to 
include an infinite number of force application variations, 
including increasing the force to just below the full load in less 
than 1 second, and then holding at that level for the remainder of 
the 30-second force application time? The results of such a force 
application would vary significantly from a linear increase in 
force.

    We agree with the Alliance that, as written, this provision would 
allow the agency to test compliance at a variety of force onset rates 
and force/time profiles. While we believe that we could legitimately 
provide for such variation, we are amending S8.1(c)(3) to provide for a 
more specific rate of force application. Today's document specifies 
that we will increase the pull force as linearly as practicable, from 
the pre-load pull force of 500 N to the full force application of 
15,000 N in 27  3 seconds, (i.e., not less than 24 seconds 
and not more than 30 seconds).12 This means that the 
compliance test laboratory will be instructed to attempt to increase 
the force at a constant rate, but that variations due to the 
limitations of the test equipment or the characteristics of the vehicle 
will not invalidate the test. Equivalent changes will be made to S11 
concerning the rate of force application for testing the lower bars of 
child restraint anchorage systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Standard No. 210 does not provide any specific rate of 
force increase, linear or otherwise. However, as set forth in our 
Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 210, we have conducted 
our compliance tests using a linear increase in force over a 25-
second period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are denying petitioner's request that manufacturers be permitted 
to specify the force application rate because we believe that the force 
should be applied at a constant rate for as long a time period as 
possible. This is to assure that the test adequately measures the 
strength of the anchorage. Metal structures generally can withstand 
greater forces under a faster rate of application than under a slower 
one. This means that an anchorage that fails when the required force is 
reached after 30 seconds might not fail if the required force is 
reached in a very short period of time. Adopting the petitioner's 
request could allow the use of weaker anchorages, resulting in a 
possible reduction in safety. However, we will permit manufacturers who 
have chosen the option of complying with the Transport Canada 
requirements to specify the rate of load application during the interim 
period. Manufacturers have been designing tether anchorages to meet the 
Canadian requirement and will need time to reassess and possibly 
reinforce the anchorage to meet the load requirement of our March 1999 
final rule when the load is applied over a 27 3 second 
period. We will provide them the needed leadtime, i.e., until September 
1, 2001. On or after September 1, 2001, we will achieve the 15,000 N 
load by increasing the load at an approximately constant rate over a 27 
3 second period.
    The Alliance also refers to a December 30, 1970 NHTSA 
interpretation letter to Mr. Shuman of International Harvester Company 
on the force application rate in Standard No. 210 to support 
petitioner's view that the force application rate in Standard No. 225 
is unrealistically long. Petitioner believes that the letter indicates 
that we believed there is no significant difference between applying 
the Standard No. 210 force in 0.1 seconds and holding it for 10 seconds 
and holding the force for 39.9 seconds. Petitioner asks: ``Does the 
agency now maintain that there is no significant difference between 
applying peak forces for 1 second and applying peak forces for 30.9 
seconds? If so, why does the agency specify unrealistically long force 
application and hold times?'
    The International Harvester letter concerns Standard No. 210's 
specification that the force applied to seat belt anchorages is applied 
within 30 seconds, and held at the maximum force level for 10 seconds. 
The letter enunciates the position that if an anchorage is strong 
enough to withstand the maximum force level of Standard No. 210 for 10 
seconds when the required force is attained in 0.1 seconds, the 
anchorage will likely be able to withstand the force held at 10 seconds 
when the force is applied in a constant rate over about 30 seconds. 
Even if this is correct in the context of Standard No. 210, the same 
can not be assumed for child restraint tether anchorages. The force 
applied to these anchorages is held for only 1 second, rather than 10 
seconds. Because metal structures can generally withstand greater 
forces under a faster rate of application than under a slower one, 
there is a margin of safety incorporated into the load application rate 
of Standard No. 225 to increase the likelihood that the anchorage will 
not fail even under the most severe crash conditions.
    The Alliance states that S8 specifies that the tether strap 
attached to the test fixture is permitted too much variation in 
elongation to objectively test the tether anchorage. The petitioner 
suggests that a narrow range of elongation be specified, such as 
between 7 and 9 percent at a force of 11,000 N. We have addressed this 
concern by amending S8 to provide that a steel cable will be used to 
attach the SFAD to the tether anchorage. The elongation of a steel 
cable under load is both minimal and predictable.
    The Alliance suggests that a tether hook be used to attach the 
strap to the tether anchorage, rather than a ``bracket.'' Petitioner 
states that without an objective bracket specification, manufacturers 
cannot determine how the device will apply loads along the anchor 
(e.g., along the entire anchor or concentrated at the center). However, 
the Alliance states, attempts by vehicle manufacturers to apply test 
forces specified in the final rule frequently break typical tether 
hooks. NHTSA has amended S8 to specify use of a tether hook. The hook 
that we will use will have the same overall dimensions as tether hooks 
on child restraints, but will be made of high strength steel. Tether 
hooks are required by S5.9(b) of Standard No. 213 to meet specified 
configuration and geometry requirements.
    With regard to the comment that tether hooks have broken under the 
test loads specified in the final rule, we note that Transport Canada 
has conducted tests that have not resulted in such breakage. In recent 
tensile strength tests performed by Transport Canada, tether hooks were 
able to sustain much higher loads than the loads expected in the test 
specified by the final rule. Three hooks from each of four 
manufacturers were tested to failure by applying a static tensile force 
at an onset force rate of 135,000 N/s with a target load of 6,500 N and 
held for a duration of 10 seconds. The average maximum loads observed 
ranged from 8,870 N to 11,800 N. These loads are substantially higher 
than the ones specified in the final rule. (These data were presented 
by Transport Canada at a meeting with manufacturers, importers and 
interested parties in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 30, 1999. A copy of 
these data has been placed in the docket for our March 5, 1999 final 
rule, 98-3390, notice 2.)
    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the 125 mm 
displacement limit specified in S6.3.1(a) and in S6.3.2 for the tether 
anchorage. As discussed in Section I of this document, the Alliance has 
stated that 125 mm displacement limit was adopted without providing the 
public notice of it and an opportunity to

[[Page 47576]]

comment. We responded to this comment in Section III, supra. Further, 
we believe that the displacement limit is preferable to the alternative 
that the tether anchorage ``withstand'' the required forces because a 
displacement limit is far more objective than the latter in determining 
whether an anchorage met the performance criteria. The petitioner also 
states that the requirement is unclear:

    It is not clear whether the agency will measure displacement 
only in the direction of the tether strap, or if the total resultant 
displacement calculated by combining displacement in all three 
dimensions is intended. It is also not clear if the reference point 
for the displacement is to be taken before or after the application 
of the 500 N pre-load force. It is also unclear whether the maximum 
displacement is measured under load or after the load is released.

    NHTSA has amended S6.3.1 to specify that we will determine the 
displacement for the tether anchor by measuring the horizontal 
excursion of point X on the test device. The reference datum for this 
measurement is where point X is located after preloading the SFAD with 
a preload force of 500 N. From that datum, the displacement is the 
total horizontal excursion that point X experiences during the loading. 
This is consistent with the displacement criterion for the lower 
anchorages. Standard No. 225 specifies that point X on SFAD 2 must not 
be displaced more than 125 mm from where point X was after preloading.
    The Alliance petitions to amend S6.2 to provide that the location 
of a tether anchorage is found using the design H-point for a seat 
position, rather than the actual H-point of the seat. The latter point 
is determined using a three-dimensional H-point machine (3-Dimensional 
seating manikin). The petitioner believes that ``[b]ecause of 
variability in position of the 3-Dimensional Seating Manikin when 
installed by different individuals and laboratories, the actual H-Point 
as determined with the Manikin will also vary in location with respect 
to the `design H-Point' for that seat position. These variations also 
occur, in part, because of the poor fit of the Manikin in certain 
seating positions, and differences in trim materials (e.g., cloth vs. 
leather). Because of this inherent variability, the NHTSA procedure 
does not objectively measure the proper position for a tether 
anchorage.''
    We disagree with the petitioner's concerns about the 3-dimensional 
seating manikin and its use in the standard's test procedure to locate 
the H-point of a vehicle seating position. We have not encountered 
variability problems in our tests using the manikin. The manikin is 
presently used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 
``Occupant Crash Protection'' (49 CFR 571.208), to determine the H-
point of a seating position for positioning Hybrid III test dummies (49 
CFR part 572, subpart E) in Standard No. 208 crash tests. It is also 
used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, ``Side Impact 
Protection'' (49 CFR 571.214), to determine the H-point for positioning 
side impact test dummies (49 CFR part 572, subpart M). Manufacturer's 
representatives are usually present during our compliance tests for 
these standards and are asked to check the dummy's positioning prior to 
a test. The 3-dimensional seating manikin produces dummy positioning 
equivalent to that obtained by manufacturers using the device in their 
own test laboratories. Further, the manikin produces repeatable results 
when used repeatedly in the same vehicle. We also believe that using 
the 3-dimensional machine results in an H-point measurement that is 
more representative of the real world than the H-point obtained through 
use of the alternative suggested by the Alliance. This is because the 
3-dimensional machine compresses the actual seat and provides a more 
realistic H-point than that achieved on paper using the 2-dimensional 
template. Further, it should also be noted that the position of the H-
point obtained using the 3-dimensional seating manikin is very close to 
the H-point obtained using the 2-dimensional template. To the extent 
needed, manufacturers can compensate for and design around the small 
differences. Because we believe that the 3-dimensional seating manikin 
yields data that are highly repeatable and reproducible and more 
realistic than those obtained by the 2-dimensional template, the 
request to specify the template is denied. (We are, however, specifying 
that the template may be used during the two-year interim period as 
part of the option allowing manufacturers to meet Canadian requirements 
for the tether anchorages. Canada uses the template to determine the 
location of tether anchorages.)
    The Alliance suggests that the tether anchorage test procedure of 
S8.1(b) be amended by adding an instruction for adjusting the fore-aft 
position of the rear attaching bars of the test device used to test a 
tether anchor at a seating position with a child restraint anchorage 
system (the test device referred to as SFAD 2). We have added the 
suggested instruction to S8.1(b). Petitioner also suggests that the 
shape of the SFAD 2 attachments that contact the lower anchor bars be 
specified because the shape could affect the outcome of the test. We 
have modified Figure 17 of the standard to show in Detail B that the 
rear of the slot in the SFAD 2 connecting arms has a diameter of 6.5 
mm. The petitioner also suggests that a stiffness specification for 
SFAD 2 be added as in the draft ISO standard, to ensure that the test 
fixture is sufficiently strong to withstand the forces in the test. We 
have added a stiffness specification, from the draft ISO standard, to 
Figure 17.
    Volkswagen (VW) petitioned to change the test device used to test a 
tether anchor at a seating position that does not have the lower 
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system (the test device 
referred to as SFAD 1). The vehicle's belts are used to attach SFAD 1 
to the vehicle seat at the seat bight. A cable is used to attach the 
top of SFAD 1 to the tether anchorage. VW states that ``[s]ome testing 
has indicated that the design of the fixture interferes with belt 
system routing requirements or geometry such that the stiff portion of 
the buckle sits at the opening of the fixture rather than being inside 
or outside the opening.'' The petitioner suggests that the SFAD 1 
openings for the belt routing be consistent with the fixture in the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1819, 
``Securing Child Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicle Rear Seats.'' J1819 
specifies a common reference tool, a ``Child Restraint System 
Accommodation Fixture,'' that approximates a child restraint system. 
Both vehicle and child restraint manufacturers can use the fixture to 
assess the degree to which their products are compatible.
    NHTSA has addressed VW's comment by amending S8.1(b) of the final 
rule to specify that if SFAD 1 cannot be attached to the vehicle seat 
using the belts because of the location of the vehicle belt buckle, the 
vehicle belt will not be used. Instead, SFAD 1 will be attached by 
material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the 
breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed 
as original equipment at that seating position. We also specify that 
the geometry of the attachment must duplicate the geometry, at the pre-
load point, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt 
assembly. These provisions are essentially the same as those specified 
in Standard No. 210, ``Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.'' We believe 
these provisions address VW's concern, while providing more flexibility 
to address the problem VW describes than

[[Page 47577]]

the approach suggested by VW. Our adopted approach will not affect the 
outcome of the assessment of the tether anchor's strength.
    Toyota suggests amending the provision that states that, for the 
purpose of testing a tether anchorage at a seating position that has a 
child restraint anchorage system, place the seat back in its most 
upright position:

    When the seat back is placed in its most upright position, in 
some vehicle seats the SFAD 2 cannot attach to the lower anchorages. 
In the real world, if a CRS [child restraint system] cannot attach 
to the anchorages, we believe the vehicle owner will adjust the seat 
back such that the CRS can be attached. Therefore, Toyota requests 
that the agency amend S7(a) * * * to allow for adjustment of the 
seat back for cases where the SFAD 2 cannot be attached to the lower 
anchorages with the seat back in its most upright position.

To address Toyota's concern, we have added a statement to S7(a), which 
states:

    When SFAD 2 is used in testing and cannot be attached to the 
lower anchorages with the seat back in this position, adjust the 
seat back as recommended by the manufacturer in its instructions for 
attaching child restraints. If no instructions are provided, adjust 
the seat back to the position that enables SFAD 2 to attach to the 
lower anchorages that is the closest to the most upright position.

    B. Issues relating to the application of the standard. Several 
petitioners ask us to reconsider the application of the standard to 
certain vehicle types or seating positions, or ask for clarification of 
the applicability of particular requirements. The Alliance asks that 
the rule be amended to specify that the requirements of the standard 
only apply to forward-facing rear designated seating positions, and not 
to rearward-or side-facing rear seats. The petitioner states that 
neither of the latter types of seats are recommended for child 
restraint installation, so the requirement for the installation of 
child restraint anchorage systems or tether anchorages should not apply 
to them. The agency agrees and has amended the provisions of S4 of the 
final rule to make clear that rear-and side-facing seats are not 
counted in determining the number of required anchorages.
    The Alliance asks us to confirm that a convertible that has no rear 
designated seating position or which has an on-off switch for the 
passenger air bag will only have to have lower anchorages in the front 
passenger seating position, and not a tether anchorage. This is 
partially correct. Vehicles that have no rear designated seating 
position, and no on-off switch, are generally required to have a tether 
anchorage at the front passenger seat (see, e.g., S4.4(c)). 
Convertibles, however, are excluded on practicability grounds from the 
requirement to have a tether anchorage (S5(a)). Thus, a convertible 
with no rear designated seating position, and no on-off switch, is not 
required to have a tether or a child restraint anchorage system in the 
front passenger seat. Vehicles that have no rear designated seating 
position but which have an on-off switch are generally required to have 
a child restraint anchorage system in the front passenger seating 
position (S5(c)(1)). Again, however, because convertibles are excluded 
from the requirement to have a tether anchorage (S5(a)), a convertible 
with no rear designated seating position and an on-off switch is 
required to have the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage 
system in the front passenger seating position, but is not required to 
have a tether anchorage at that position. We have added language to 
S5(c) to clarify these requirements.
    Global Vehicle Services, Corporation asks us to clarify the 
provisions of the standard as they apply to vehicles that have received 
temporary exemptions under 49 CFR Part 555 from the requirement in 
Standard No. 208 that an air bag be provided for the front passenger 
seating position. This and other requests for reconsideration of 
S5(d)'s prohibition against placing a child restraint anchorage system 
in an air bag-equipped front passenger seating position will be 
addressed in the next document we will be publishing in response to the 
petitions for reconsideration.
    The Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. 
(Cosvam), asks us to reconsider the requirement that vehicles without 
any rear designated seating position (and without an air bag on-off 
switch) must be equipped with a tether anchorage at each front 
passenger seating position (see, e.g., S4.4(c)). Cosvam asks that we 
permit manufacturers to label the vehicle as ``unsuitable for child 
seats'' and exclude so labeled vehicles from requirements to have a 
tether anchorage. Cosvam said it believes that, because manufacturers 
know their vehicles better than anyone else, and are ultimately held 
responsible for issues involving vehicle design and performance, they 
should be permitted to decide whether the use of a child restraint is 
appropriate in their vehicles.
    NHTSA is denying this request. We are concerned that child 
restraints could be used in vehicles that do not have rear seating 
positions, but have air bags at front passenger seating positions. Our 
rule prohibits the installation of a full child restraint anchorage 
system at the front seating position if the vehicle does not have an 
on-off switch. The purpose of this prohibition is to reduce the 
likelihood that a child restraint system would be used in the front 
seat. However, because there could be parents who would use the 
vehicle, notwithstanding the lack of a child restraint anchorage 
system, to transport their children, we decided to require the 
installation of a tether anchorage. The provision to which Cosvam 
objects is primarily for the benefit of toddlers in forward-facing 
child restraints. In the event the vehicle were used to carry these 
toddlers, a tether anchorage would help keep the child restraint and 
the restrained child as far as possible from a deploying air bag. 
(NHTSA has received a number of telephone calls from owners of vehicles 
with no rear seat asking for help in installing child restraints in 
front seats.) A tether anchorage would be very helpful in reducing head 
excursion toward the dashboard in the event of a crash. Further, 
although we encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully inform potential 
buyers of possible incompatibility problems between their vehicles and 
child restraints, we are concerned that Cosvam's suggestion that the 
vehicles in question should be permitted to be labeled as not suitable 
for child restraints may not dissuade some parents from using the 
vehicle to carry children. Parents do in fact use sports cars to 
transport children in child restraint systems. NHTSA has received a 
number of phone calls from owners of sports cars wanting to know which 
child restraint system fits best in their vehicles. We believe that a 
tether anchorage should be provided in these vehicles to improve the 
securement of the child in the event the toddler is transported in the 
vehicle. Accordingly, this request is denied.
    Several petitioners ask us to reconsider the requirement in S9.3, 
Adequate fit of the lower anchorages, that each vehicle and each child 
restraint anchorage system in that vehicle must be designed such that 
the child restraint fixture (CRF) specified in the standard can be 
placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each 
child restraint anchorage system. Cosvam argues that this requirement 
amounts to a ``prohibited design standard,'' and would require the 
manufacturers of sports cars and similar vehicles to redesign or 
eliminate rear seats of those vehicles. Cosvam asks us to add a 
provision to the rule stating that vehicles having rear seats that 
cannot accommodate the CRF, but lacking an

[[Page 47578]]

on-off switch for the air bag, need have neither a tether nor child 
restraint anchorage system in the rear seat of the vehicle, nor a 
tether anchorage in the front seating position. In other words, they 
are excluded from the standard. The petitioner states: ``Manufacturers 
should be permitted to exclude `small rear seat vehicles' because they 
are, from a child restraint point of view, the same as vehicles without 
rear seats.''
    American Honda states in its petition that it can be very difficult 
or impossible to get the CRF into the rear seating area of some 
vehicles, such as small two-door cars. The commenter states that the 
draft ISO standard (which developed the CRF and the procedures for its 
use) specifies that ``To facilitate installation of the CRF in a 
vehicle seat, the CRF may be constructed of smaller parts and assembled 
in the vehicle seat. Alternatively, vehicle components maybe removed to 
allow access.'' Honda requests that similar language be added to 
Standard No. 225. Honda also states ``From a practical standpoint, we 
believe that child restraints will be offered in various sizes, 
including child restraints that are somewhat smaller than the CRF for 
use in small vehicles. * * * Thus, if the CRF, in its full shape and 
size, can be fitted to the lower anchorages, we believe it is not 
important whether the CRF had to be assembled in place or some vehicle 
components (e.g., front seat) had to be removed to facilitate getting 
the CRF into the seat position where the lower anchorage fit was being 
checked.''
    Toyota, in its petition for reconsideration, states that some of 
the rear seating positions in some carlines can not accommodate the 
CRF, but are able to accommodate existing child restraints and will be 
able to accommodate new child restraints that will use the child 
restraint anchorage system. Toyota suggests that we exclude vehicles 
that cannot accommodate the CRF, due to a lack of rear seating space, 
from the fit requirements of S9.3, as long as the lower anchorages that 
are required to be installed are designed to accommodate the lower 
anchorages of the CRF.
    We are amending S9.3 along the line suggested by Honda and not 
adopting the suggestions of Cosvam and Toyota. We agree that S9.3 as 
currently written could result in unnecessary design changes for some 
vehicles. The CRF is larger than many child restraint systems. Even if 
the CRF does not fit in a vehicle's rear seat, there will likely be 
child restraint models that will be small enough to fit. Accordingly, 
we are amending S9.3 to specify that, to facilitate installation of the 
CRF in a vehicle seat, the side and top frames of the CRF may be 
removed in order to place it in the vehicle. To illustrate the CRF with 
the side and top frames removed, we are adding a Figure 1A to the 
standard. We believe that this approach responds to Cosvam's and 
Toyota's concerns about the ability of their vehicles to fit the CRF in 
the rear seating system and makes it unnecessary to exclude vehicles as 
these petitioners have requested. We do not believe sufficient 
information has been provided to justify excluding vehicles with one or 
two designated rear seating positions from the requirement to provide a 
child restraint anchorage system at those positions. Some parents may 
use the vehicle to transport children regardless of a label that tells 
them that the vehicle is unsuitable for child restraints. (See 
response, above, to Cosvam's request to label vehicles.) A child 
restraint anchorage system in rear seating positions will provide 
benefits to the children using them.
    The Alliance asks us to confirm its understanding that the new 
standard does not apply to tether anchorages and child restraint 
anchorage systems installed in vehicles not listed in the Application 
section of the standard (S2). That understanding is correct. We had 
proposed in the NPRM the issuance of a separate standard establishing 
requirements for the strength and location of tether anchorages, and 
the application of this standard to any tether anchorage installed in 
new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and 
buses (see proposed Standard No. 210b, 62 FR 7885). However, the final 
rule applies to vehicles listed in the application section of Standard 
No. 225, and not to anchorages installed in new vehicles. The Alliance 
is correct that S4.1 of the standard (which requires that each tether 
anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system installed, either 
voluntarily or pursuant to Standard No. 225, in any new vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply with the 
configuration, location and strength requirements of the standard) does 
not limit the voluntary installation of child restraint anchorage 
systems or tether anchorages in vehicles not listed in S2 of the 
standard. Although anchorage systems installed in these vehicles will 
not be subject to the standard's requirements, they will be subject to 
our defect authority. Manufacturers would therefore have to ensure that 
the systems are free of safety-related defects. (The agency encourages 
manufacturers to ensure that anchorage systems installed in vehicles 
not subject to Standard No. 225 nonetheless voluntarily meet the 
performance requirements of the standard to ensure that the systems 
offer adequate crash protection. A parent is likely to assume that such 
systems meet minimum performance requirements.)
    The Alliance, and Ford, in a separate petition, ask NHTSA to 
clarify S4.1 of the standard to permit what petitioners call ``ISO-
compatible anchorage systems.'' The Alliance explains that:

    Installing two child restraint anchorage systems in the two 
outboard positions of a typical three-passenger rear seat creates a 
third non-complying ``child restraint anchorage system'' at the 
center seat position. This anchorage system consists of the tether 
anchorage and the inboard lower anchors of the two child restraint 
anchorage systems at the outboard seating positions. This anchorage 
system sometimes referred to as ISO-compatible, can be used to 
install child restraints with webbing-based attachment systems, but 
it does not meet all the technical requirements of the final rule. * 
* *
    S4.1 appears to prohibit installing child restraint anchorage 
systems at both outboard-seating positions because doing so would 
create a non-complying voluntary anchorage system at the center seat 
position. The essential difference between complying anchorage 
systems and ISO-compatible anchorage systems is that the lateral 
spacing of anchors is not 280 mm in an ISO-compatible anchorage. 
Because of non-standard lateral spacing, ISO-compatible anchorage 
systems cannot be used to install child restraints using rigid 
attachments. But these ISO-compatible anchorage systems can 
typically be used to install child restraints equipped with webbing-
based round-bar attachments. * * * Because of non-standard spacing, 
the SFAD 2 cannot be used to test the strength and stiffness of 
these lower anchors and tether anchor as a system, but the lower 
anchors would be subject to testing of the anchorage systems for the 
outboard position. Alliance members would test the center tether 
anchorage using the SFAD 1 or the 5.3 kN single-strap test.
    Some Alliance members had planned to treat these center anchor 
systems as voluntary, non-standard anchorage systems and to advise 
customers that these center positions could be used to secure child 
restraints equipped with webbing-mounted attachments. No Alliance 
members plan to test these ISO-compatible anchorage systems as a 
separate system, because all parts of such a system are subject to 
testing as a tether anchorage or as part of the outboard child 
restraint anchorage system. * * *
    The Alliance petitions the agency to clarify S4.1 to allow 
voluntary ``ISO-compatible'' systems. Such systems should not be 
subject to the position and spacing requirements of FMVSS 225, 
provided the manufacturer provides instructions for the proper 
installation of child restraints in these positions in the vehicle 
owner's manual. * * *


[[Page 47579]]


    Standard No. 225 does not prohibit the installation of these so-
called ``ISO-compatible'' anchorage systems. An ISO-compatible system 
is a system consisting of lower anchorage bars from adjacent, properly-
designed, child restraint anchorage systems. We do not consider an ISO-
compatible anchorage system to be a ``child restraint anchorage 
system'' under Standard No. 225, because it does not have lower 
anchorages of its own. The strength of the tether anchorage of the ISO-
compatible system will be tested using the SFAD 1 (attached by the 
vehicle's belt system at the seating position where the ISO-compatible 
system is located), or the single-strap (until 2004, see S6.3.2).
    The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) asks us to exclude 
shuttle-type buses from the standard. Petitioner states that these 
vehicles are most often used as hotel or rental car shuttle vehicles 
and as paratransit vehicles. Petitioner believes that these vehicles 
should be excluded because almost all of the seats in them are side-
facing, and ``[w]e don't know that it is appropriate for child 
restraint seats to be placed in a side-facing seat.'' NTEA also states 
that the only forward-facing passenger seats in these vehicles is often 
the rear bench, which is placed against the back wall of the vehicle. 
Petitioner believes that there is no practicable method of anchoring 
the tether strap.
    We agree that it is unlikely that child restraints will be used in 
shuttle type buses (with side-facing seats along the side perimeter 
walls of the passenger compartment and whose only forward facing 
seating positions in the passenger compartment are those along the rear 
wall of the bus). These buses also have limited use geographically, 
moving people relatively short distances. A tether anchorage may also 
be more costly to install in the rear row of these buses, given the 
proximity of the rear bench to the rear wall of the vehicle. In view of 
these factors, the combination of higher costs and much lower usage 
probably makes application of the standard not cost beneficial. We are 
thus excluding ``shuttle buses'' from the standard. A definition of 
shuttle bus is added to the standard to read as follows: Shuttle bus 
means a bus with only one row of forward-facing seating positions 
rearward of the driver's seat.
    C. Written instructions. The Alliance and Porsche Cars North 
America petitioned to delete S12 of the standard, which requires 
vehicle manufacturers to provide written instructions for using the 
tether anchorage and the child restraint anchorage system in the 
vehicle. Included among the required instructions are those that 
provide ``a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for properly 
attaching a child restraint system to the tether anchorages and the 
child restraint anchorage system.'' The Alliance states that S12 
requires

too much detail for a vehicle owner's manual because of the great 
variety of possible child restraint attachments on the market, even 
if the vehicle manufacturer could know in advance, before the 
publication of its owner's manual, the details regarding each child 
restraint attachment likely to be offered during the vehicle's 
anticipated period of useful service. Obviously, no manufacturer 
will have such knowledge.

    General instructions on using a child restraint anchorage system 
are required by the introductory paragraph of S12. Instructions on 
using the child restraint anchorage system will help increase the 
likelihood that a child restraint anchorage system and a tether 
anchorage would be properly used. However, the agency recognizes that 
it may be difficult for vehicle manufacturers to anticipate how child 
restraint manufacturers will design the components that attach to the 
lower anchorage bars of a child restraint anchorage system. With these 
considerations in mind, we have amended S12(c) to delete the 
requirement for detailed instructions on attaching a child restraint to 
a child restraint anchorage system. However, detailed instructions on 
attaching a tether strap to the tether anchorage will still be 
required. This requirement is being retained because the child 
restraint standard (Standard No. 213) specifies the configuration and 
geometry of the tether hook. Vehicle manufacturers, therefore, can 
develop their written instructions with the tether hook design in mind. 
We have also declined to delete S12 entirely, because S12(a) and (b) 
will help parents identify which seating positions have the child 
restraint anchorage systems, how to access the anchorages if they are 
covered, and how to interpret the marks required by S9.5(a) of the 
standard. This information will help increase the likelihood that the 
anchorages will be properly used.

b. Requirements for Child Restraints Relating to September 1, 1999 
Compliance Date

1. Audible or Visual Indication of Attachment
    Kolcraft Enterprises petitioned for reconsideration asking NHTSA to 
clarify or reconsider S5.9(d) of the final rule. That section requires 
each child restraint system, other than a system with hooks for 
attaching to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage 
system, to provide either an audible indication when each attachment to 
the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or attached, or a visual 
indication that all attachments to the lower anchorages are fully 
latched or attached. Visual indications shall be detectable under 
normal daylight lighting conditions.
    Kolcraft states that:

    While this provision makes sense after September 1, 2002 when 
each new child restraint must be equipped with lower anchorage 
attachment components, compliance with the provision is 
impracticable in advance of that date (except for child restraints 
that are voluntarily equipped with lower anchorage attachment 
components in advance of the regulatory deadline). Yet, it appears 
that Section 5.9(d) takes effect for all child restraints 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, because the provision 
does not explicitly specify a later effective date.

    NHTSA did not intend to imply that child restraints that do not 
have the means for attaching to the lower bars of a vehicle's child 
restraint anchorage system must provide the audible or visual 
indicators described in S5.9(d). Such a requirement does not make sense 
for child restraints that do not have the attachments. For a child 
restraint that has such attachments, the audible or visual indicators 
would be needed to better ensure that parents properly latch the 
attachments. Accordingly, we have revised S5.9(d) to make clear that it 
applies only to child restraints with components that enable the 
restraints to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child 
restraint anchorage system (other than child restraints with hooks for 
attaching to the lower anchorages).
2. Attachments Must be Permanent
    Indiana Mills & Manufacturing (IMMI) has petitioned us to 
reconsider the requirement in S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 that each 
child restraint system must have the components that attach to the 
lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system permanently attached 
to the child restraint. We are denying this petition.
    IMMI states that it believes that almost all child restraint 
manufacturers will use a snap hook (on a strap) to fasten the child 
restraint system to the lower bars. IMMI believes that ``a snap hook 
and adjuster is virtually impossible to release when excessively 
tightened.'' To overcome this perceived problem, petitioner wishes to 
put a seat belt type push-button buckle on the webbing strap that 
connects to the snap

[[Page 47580]]

hook. A latch plate would be permanently welded on to the child 
restraint to couple with and unbuckle from the buckle on the snap hook 
strap.
    This design would not meet S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 because the 
snap hook is not permanently attached to the child restraint. While 
IMMI believes that the design would make it easier to unfasten a child 
restraint from the lower bars, we are concerned about the likelihood 
that some parents will lose the non-permanent piece, which will render 
them unable to use the child restraint anchorage system. In the NPRM 
for the March 5, 1999 final rule, we raised the issue of whether a 
final rule should encompass a scheme whereby a non-permanent piece 
(similar to IMMI's webbing piece with the snap hook on one end and 
buckle on the other) could be provided to consumers by vehicle 
manufacturers to enable parents to adapt a child restraint anchorage 
system for use with child restraints not originally made for such a 
system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that 
the adapter would be lost or misused by consumers. (This issue is 
discussed in the final rule at 64 FR 10798-10799.) Because of those 
comments, we decided to mandate a single child restraint anchorage 
system, and to require in S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 that the 
components that attach to the lower bars must be permanently attached 
to the child restraint. With IMMI's system, some parents might forget 
or lose the snap hook piece, and would not be able to attach the child 
restraint to the anchorage system. We continue to believe that the 
``permanently attached'' requirement serves a safety need by increasing 
the likelihood that the components will be present when the child 
restraint needs to be installed in a child restraint anchorage system.
    With regard to IMMI's belief that excessively tightened snap hooks 
will be virtually impossible to release, the March 1999 final rule 
added a requirement to Standard No. 213 that the belt webbing has to be 
adjustable so that the child restraint can be tightly attached to the 
vehicle (S5.9(d)). We believe that most, if not all adjusters will also 
be capable of releasing the tension of the belt so that the snap hook 
can be easily unfastened. If we were to find that parents are having 
difficult releasing snap hooks, we will consider rulemaking possibly to 
require a release mechanism that will facilitate the easy release of 
highly tightened snap hooks.
    Ford states in its petition that although it supports the intent of 
the requirement in S5.9(a) that components must be ``permanently 
attached,'' Ford believes that the meaning of what constitutes 
permanently attached needs to be clarified. Ford states on page 8:

    Are existing child restraint belt harnesses ``permanently 
attached,'' even though they can be removed for repositioning? For 
example, is a buckle and crotch strap assembly ``permanently 
attached'' if it can be removed for relocation to an alternate 
position that is further forward? Are belts on a hybrid harness 
booster that are designed to be removed when the restraint is 
converted into a belt-positioning booster ``permanently attached?'' 
Can lower anchor attachments be removable so they can be relocated 
to different positions depending on whether the child restraint is 
being used rear-or forward-facing? Because attachment to lower 
anchors is not appropriate for belt-positioning boosters, it would 
be appropriate to allow lower anchor attachments to be removed from 
harness boosters when they are converted into belt-positioning 
boosters.

    We have granted this part of the petition to clarify the meaning of 
permanently attached. For maximum design flexibility in designing the 
components on child restraints that attach to the lower bars, child 
restraint manufacturers might want consumers to move or remove the 
components that attach to the lower bars. Opposed to this is the 
interest in ensuring that the components are present on child 
restraints when needed. To balance these concerns, we have amended 
S5.9(a) to add a sentence that ``The components must be attached such 
that they can only be removed by use of a tool, such as a 
screwdriver.'' We believe that this provision will permit child 
restraint manufacturers some design flexibility, yet will limit how 
easily the components can be removed. Limiting easy removal of the 
components will increase the likelihood that components are in place 
when needed.

c. Reasons for the Effective Date of This Rule

    Section 30111(d) of our motor vehicle safety statute (Title 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301) requires that a safety standard may not become 
effective before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or 
later than one year after it is prescribed, unless we find, for good 
cause shown, that a different effective date is in the public interest 
and publish the reasons for the finding. The effective date for this 
final rule is September 1, 1999, which is the same effective date as 
for the March 1999 final rule which today's rule amends. Today's rule 
does not impose new requirements on manufacturers but permits them to 
begin meeting, at the manufacturer's option, alternative strength 
requirements for an interim period. This rule also clarifies test 
procedures specified in the March 1999 final rule. Because today's rule 
provides an alternative to manufacturers which they may begin meeting 
in lieu of the requirements which come into effect September 1, 1999, 
and clarifies test requirements that come into effect September 1, it 
is in the public interest for the effective dates for today's rule to 
be the same as that of the March 1999 rule: September 1, 1999.

IV. Corrections to Final Rule

    This document makes the following corrections to the March 1999 
final rule which have been brought to our attention by petitioners and 
by other parties:
     Standard No. 213 is amended by correcting the table to 
S5.1.3.1(a) to show that backless booster seats are excluded from the 
new 720 mm head excursion limit. These seats were excluded because, as 
discussed in the preamble, the manufacturers of backless booster seats 
may have practicability problems in meeting the requirement. In 
addition, S5.9(a) of the standard is corrected to specify that for 
rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base need 
have the permanently attached components that enable the restraint to 
be securely fastened to the lower bars of a child restraint anchorages 
system (as opposed to requiring the components on both the base and the 
restraint system itself). The agency intended to specify this 
limitation in Standard No. 213 (see 64 FR at 10806-10807), but did not 
do so in the regulatory text of the final rule.
     Figures 1B and 1B' of Standard No. 213 are corrected by 
revising some of the dimensions for the test assembly.
     Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 225 is corrected to specify 
that voluntarily-installed lower bars must meet marking requirements 
along with configuration, location and strength requirements of the 
standard. We stated in the preamble to the final rule that we were 
specifying marking requirements: ``The agency has drafted this final 
rule to apply the standard's configuration, location, strength and 
marking requirements to any additional voluntarily-installed rigid bar 
anchorage system installed on a new school bus, or on any other 
vehicle.'' (64 FR at 10803, column 2.) However, we inadvertently did 
not refer to marking requirements in S4.1.
     S9.4.1 of Standard No. 225 is corrected by adding a 
tolerance for defining the vertical longitudinal plane for the forward 
direction force. The tolerance is from the draft ISO standard. In 
addition, we added S9.4.1.1 to specify the vertical angles for the 
forward and lateral direction forces. The

[[Page 47581]]

specified angles are also from the draft ISO standard.
     S11(a) and (b) of Standard No. 225 are corrected by adding 
a 135 N rearward force to remove slack or tension to the device prior 
to its loading. The specified force is from the draft ISO standard.
     The following figures in Standard No. 225 are corrected: 
Figure 1 (added yaw/pitch/roll); Figure 2 (added mass of CRF and 
corrected dimensions on top view); Figures 3 to 11 (darkened shading); 
Figure 15 and 16 (corrected dimension that Transport Canada also has on 
top view); Figure 17 (added 6.5 mm diameter on detail B, deleted point 
Y on detail A, corrected 270 dimension on side view and added stiffness 
details to side and back views and to note 5); Figure 18 (made force 
application attachment as in Figure 17); and Figure 19 (degree sign).

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' We have considered the impacts of 
this rulemaking action and have determined that this action is not 
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. We have further 
determined that the effects of this rulemaking are sufficiently minimal 
that preparation of a full preliminary regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted. We believe that manufacturers will be minimally affected by 
this rulemaking because it does not change manufacturers' 
responsibilities to begin installing tether anchorages and the lower 
bars of child restraint anchorage systems on the compliance dates of 
the March 5, 1999 final rule. The rule instead permits manufacturers to 
begin meeting, at the manufacturer's option, alterative strength 
requirements for an interim period. We believe there will be no 
additional testing costs associated with this final rule. This rule 
clarifies testing requirements but does not impose new test burdens. 
The method of testing tether anchorages and the lower bars of child 
restraint anchorage systems will be basically the same as they are 
under the March 1999 final rule. Further, since the amendment is 
permissive in nature, there are no costs associated with it.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that it will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule affects motor vehicle manufacturers, almost all of 
which are not small business. Even if there are motor vehicle 
manufacturers that qualify as small entities, this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on them because these amendments are 
generally permissive in nature, and have no costs associated with it. 
Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

c. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the 
agency has determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million annually. This rule does not impose any unfunded 
mandates as defined by that Act.

e. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA)(Public Law 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments 
shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as 
a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the 
agencies and departments.'' This final rule permits manufacturers to 
meet the specifications in the draft ISO standard for child restraint 
anchorage systems during an interim period, as an alternative to 
meeting the requirements of the March 1999 final rule. The 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a worldwide 
voluntary federation of ISO member bodies. By permitting the 
alternative in the short run, this rule is consistent with the NTTAA's 
goals of encouraging long-term growth for U.S. enterprises and 
promoting efficiency and economic competition through harmonization of 
standards.

f. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

h. Paperwork Reduction Act.

    This rule does not contain any collection of information 
requirements requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-13). We noted in the March 1999 final rule that the 
phase-in production reporting requirements described in that rule are 
considered to be information collection requirements as defined by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. NHTSA will be 
submitting a clearance request to OMB for review and clearance in the 
near future. The agency notes that the clearance for the information 
collection requirements of Standard 213, ``Child Restraint Systems,'' 
will expire September 1, 2000 (OMB Clearance No. 2127-0511). NHTSA 
anticipates it will submit a request to OMB to renew the clearance of 
that standard and, at or near the same time, will be submitting an 
information collection request to OMB for review and clearance of the 
information collections in the March 1999 final rule.
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's regulations at 5 
CFR section 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential persons who are 
to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not 
required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The agency's current

[[Page 47582]]

OMB control numbers are displayed in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR Part 
509, OMB Control Numbers for Information Collection Requirements.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. In Sec. 571.213--
    a. S5.1.3.1 as amended at 64 FR 10815, effective September 1, 1999, 
is amended by revising ``Table to S5.1.3.1(A)--Add-On Forward-Facing 
Child Restraints'';
    b. S5.9(a) and (d) are revised; and
    c. Figure 1B and Figure 1B', as amended at 64 FR 10820, effective 
September 1, 1999, are revised.
    The revised text reads as follows:


Sec. 571.213  Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 47583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.011



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 47584]]

* * * * *
    S5.9  Attachment to child restraint anchorage system.
    (a) Each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2002, other than a car bed, harness and belt-positioning 
seat, shall have components permanently attached to the system that 
enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of 
the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 
(Sec. 571.225) and depicted in Drawing Package 100-1000 with Addendum 
A: Seat Base Weldment (consisting of drawings and a bill of materials) 
dated October 23, 1998, (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 571.5). 
The components must be attached such that they can only be removed by 
use of a tool, such as a screwdriver. In the case of rear-facing child 
restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the 
components.
* * * * *
    (d) Beginning September 1, 1999, each child restraint system with 
components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the 
lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system, other than a 
system with hooks for attaching to the lower anchorages, shall provide 
either an indication when each attachment to the lower anchorages 
becomes fully latched or attached, or a visual indication that all 
attachments to the lower anchorages are fully latched or attached. 
Visual indications shall be detectable under normal daylight lighting 
conditions.
* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 47585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.012



[[Page 47586]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.013



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 47587]]

    3. Section 571.225 is amended by:
    a. Revising S2, and by amending S3 by adding, in alphabetical 
order, a definition for ``Seat bight'' and for ``Shuttle bus';
    b. Revising S4.1, S4.2(a), S4.2(b), S4.2(c), S4.3(a)(1), 
S4.3(a)(2), S4.3(b)(1), S4.3(b)(2), S4.3(b)(3), S4.4(a), S4.4(a)(1), 
S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b), and S4.4(c);
    c. Adding S4.5;
    d. Revising S5(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2) in its entirety;
    e. By designating the text of S6.2 as S6.2.1 and revising the 
introductory text, and adding new text to S6.2 and new S6.2.2, S6.2.2.1 
and S6.2.2.2;
    f. Adding text to S6.3, revising S6.3.1 in its entirety, and adding 
S6.3.4 and S6.3.4.1 through S6.3.4.4;
    g. Revising S7(a), S8, S8.1, and the introductory paragraph of 
S8.2;
    h. Amending S9 by adding text following the heading of S9;
    i. Revising S9.1.1(a) and S9.1.1(f); and adding S9.3(c);
    j. Revising the introductory paragraph of S9.4.1 and revising 
S9.4.1(a), and adding S9.4.1.1;
    k. Revising S11(a), S11(b), S12(b) and S12(c);
    l. Adding S15, S15.1, S15.1.1, S15.1.2, S15.1.2.1, S15.1.2.2, 
S15.2, S15.2.1, S15.2.2, S15.3, S15.3.1, S15.3.2, S15.3.3 and S15.3.4;
    m. Revising Figures 1 through 11, and Figures 15 through 19; and
    n. Adding a Figure 1A between Figures 1 and 2.
    The revised and added text and figures read as follows:


Sec. 571.225  Standard No. 225; Child restraint anchorage systems.

* * * * *
    S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars; to trucks 
and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less, except walk-in van-
type vehicles and vehicles manufactured to be sold exclusively to the 
U.S. Postal Service; and to buses (including school buses) with a GVWR 
of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, except shuttle buses.
* * * * *
    S3. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Seat bight means the area close to and including the intersection 
of the surfaces of the vehicle seat cushion and the seat back.
    Shuttle bus means a bus with only one row of forward-facing seating 
positions rearward of the driver's seat.
* * * * *
    S4.1  Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage 
system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in 
any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall 
comply with the configuration, location, marking and strength 
requirements of this standard. The vehicle shall be delivered with 
written information, in English, on how to appropriately use those 
anchorages and systems.
    S4.2  * * *
    (a) Each vehicle with three or more forward-facing rear designated 
seating positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming 
to the requirements of S6 at no fewer than three forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions. The tether anchorage of a child restraint 
anchorage system may count towards the three required tether 
anchorages. In each vehicle with a forward-facing rear designated 
seating position other than an outboard designated seating position, at 
least one tether anchorage (with or without the lower anchorages of a 
child restraint anchorage system) shall be at such a designated seating 
position. In a vehicle with three or more rows of seating positions, at 
least one of the tether anchorages (with or without the lower 
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system) shall be installed at 
a forward-facing seating position in the second row if such a forward-
facing seating position is available in that row.
    (b) Each vehicle with not more than two forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage 
conforming to the requirements of S6 at each forward-facing rear 
designated seating position. The tether anchorage of a child restraint 
anchorage system may count toward the required tether anchorages.
    (c) Each vehicle without any forward-facing rear designated seating 
position shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming to the 
requirements of S6 at each front forward-facing passenger seating 
position.
    S4.3  * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Each vehicle with three or more forward-facing rear designated 
seating positions shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage 
system conforming to the requirements of S9 at not fewer than two 
forward-facing rear designated seating positions. In a vehicle with 
three or more rows of seating positions, at least one of the child 
restraint anchorage systems shall be at a forward-facing seating 
position in the second row if such a forward-facing seating position is 
available in that row.
    (2) Each vehicle with not more than two forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions shall be equipped with a child restraint 
anchorage system conforming to the requirements of S9 at each forward-
facing rear designated seating position.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Each vehicle with three or more forward-facing rear designated 
seating positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming 
to the requirements of S6 at no fewer than three forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions. The tether anchorage of a child restraint 
anchorage system may count towards the three required tether 
anchorages. In each vehicle with a forward-facing rear designated 
seating position other than an outboard designated seating position, at 
least one tether anchorage (with or without the lower anchorages of a 
child restraint anchorage system) shall be at such a designated seating 
position. In a vehicle with three or more rows of seating positions, at 
least one of the tether anchorages (with or without the lower 
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system) shall be installed at 
a forward-facing seating position in the second row if such a forward-
facing seating position is available in that row.
    (2) Each vehicle with not more than two forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions shall be equipped with a tether anchorage 
conforming to the requirements of S6 at each forward-facing rear 
designated seating position. The tether anchorage of a child restraint 
anchorage system may count toward the required tether anchorages.
    (3) Each vehicle without any forward-facing rear designated seating 
position shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming to the 
requirements of S6 at each front passenger seating position.
    S4.4  * * *
    (a) Each vehicle with three or more forward-facing rear designated 
seating positions shall be equipped as specified in S4.4(a)(1) and (2).
    (1) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a child restraint anchorage 
system conforming to the requirements of S9 at not fewer than two 
forward-facing rear designated seating positions. At least one of the 
child restraint anchorage systems shall be installed at a forward-
facing seating position in the second row in each vehicle that has 
three or more rows, if such a forward-facing seating position is 
available in that row.
    (2) Each vehicle shall be equipped with a tether anchorage 
conforming to the requirements of S6 at a third forward-facing rear 
designated seating position. The tether anchorage of a child

[[Page 47588]]

restraint anchorage system may count towards the third required tether 
anchorage. In each vehicle with a forward-facing rear designated 
seating position other than an outboard designated seating position, at 
least one tether anchorage (with or without the lower anchorages of a 
child restraint anchorage system) shall be at such a designated seating 
position.
    (b) Each vehicle with not more than two forward-facing rear 
designated seating positions shall be equipped with a child restraint 
anchorage system conforming to the requirements of S9 at each forward-
facing rear designated seating position.
    (c) Each vehicle without any forward-facing rear designated seating 
position shall be equipped with a tether anchorage conforming to the 
requirements of S6 at each front forward-facing passenger seating 
position.
    S4.5  As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S4.2 
through S4.4 that specify the number of tether anchorages that are 
required in a vehicle and the designated seating positions for which 
tether anchorages must be provided, a vehicle manufactured from 
September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2001 may, at the manufacturer's option 
(with said option irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time of, 
certification of the vehicle), meet the requirements of this S4.5. This 
alternative ceases to be available on and after September 1, 2001. A 
tether anchorage conforming to the requirements of S6 shall be 
installed--
    (a) for each designated seating position, other than that of the 
driver, in a vehicle that has only one row of designated seating 
positions;
    (b) for each forward-facing designated seating position in the 
second row of seating positions in a passenger car or truck;
    (c) for each of any two forward-facing designated seating positions 
in the second row of seating positions in a multipurpose passenger 
vehicle that has five or fewer designated seating positions; and,
    (d) for each of any three forward-facing designated seating 
positions that are located to the rear of the first row of designated 
seating positions in a multipurpose passenger vehicle that has six or 
more designated seating positions.
* * * * *
    S5. General exceptions.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (ii) Has an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of 
S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208), shall have a child restraint 
anchorage system for a designated passenger seating position in the 
front seat, instead of only a tether anchorage. In the case of 
convertibles, the front designated passenger seating position need have 
only the two lower anchorages meeting the requirements of S9 of this 
standard.
    (2) Each vehicle that--
    (i) Has a rear designated seating position and meets the conditions 
in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208); and,
    (ii) Has an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of 
S4.5.4 of Standard 208 (Sec. 571.208), shall have a child restraint 
anchorage system for a designated passenger seating position in the 
front seat, instead of a child restraint anchorage system that is 
required for the rear seat. In the case of convertibles, the front 
designated passenger seating position need have only the two lower 
anchorages meeting the requirements of S9 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S6.2  Location of the tether anchorage. A vehicle manufactured from 
September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2001 may, at the manufacturer's option 
(with said option irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time of, 
certification of the vehicle), meet the requirements of S6.2.1 or 
S6.2.2. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 must meet 
the requirements of S6.2.1 of this standard.
    S6.2.1  Subject to S6.2.1.1 and S6.2.1.2, the part of each tether 
anchorage that attaches to a tether hook shall be located within the 
shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard of the designated 
seating position for which it is installed, such that--
* * * * *
    S6.2.2  Subject to S6.2.2.1 and S6.2.2.2, the portion of each user-
ready tether anchorage that is designed to bind with a tether strap 
hook shall be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of 
this standard of the designated seating position for which it is 
installed, with reference to the H-point of a template described in 
section 3.1 of SAE Standard J826 (June 1992) (incorporation by 
reference; see Sec. 571.5), if:
    (a) the H-point of the template is located--
    (1) At the unique Design H-point of the designated seating 
position, as defined in section 2.2.11.1 of SAE Recommended Practice 
J1100 (June 1993) (incorporation by reference; see Sec. 571.5), at the 
full downward and full rearward position of the seat, or--
    (2) In the case of a designated seating position that has a means 
of affixing the lower portion of a child restraint system to the 
vehicle, other than a vehicle seat belt, midway between the two lower 
restraint system anchorages;
    (b) the torso line of the template is at the same angle to the 
transverse vertical plane as the vehicle seat back with the seat 
adjusted to its full rearward and full downward position and the seat 
back in its most upright position; and
    (c) the template is positioned in the vertical longitudinal plane 
that contains the H-point of the template.
    S6.2.2.1  Until September 1, 2001, the portion of each user-ready 
tether anchorage that is designed to bind with the tether strap hook 
may be located in a passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle 
within the shaded zone shown in Figures 8 to 11 of the designated 
seating position for which it is installed, with reference to the 
shoulder reference point of a template described in section 3.1 of SAE 
Standard J826 (June 1992) (incorporation by reference; see Sec. 571.5), 
if:
    (a) the H-point of the template is located--
    (1) at the unique Design H-point of the designated seating 
position, as defined in section 2.2.11.1 of SAE Recommended Practice 
J1100 (June 1993) (incorporation by reference; see Sec. 571.5), at the 
full downward and full rearward position of the seat, or--
    (2) in the case of a designated seating position that has a means 
of affixing the lower portion of a child restraint system to the 
vehicle, other than a vehicle seat belt, midway between the two lower 
restraint system anchorages;
    (b) the torso line of the template is at the same angle to the 
vertical plane as the vehicle seat back with the seat adjusted to its 
full rearward and full downward position and the seat back in its most 
upright position; and
    (c) the template is positioned in the vertical longitudinal plane 
that contains the H-point of the template.
    S6.2.2.2  The portion of a user-ready tether anchorage in a vehicle 
that is designed to bind with the tether strap hook may be located 
outside the shaded zone referred to in S6.2.2, if no part of the shaded 
zone is accessible without removing a seating component of the vehicle 
and the vehicle is equipped with a routing device that--
    (a) ensures that the tether strap functions as if the portion of 
the anchorage designed to bind with the tether strap hook were located 
within the shaded zone;
    (b) is at least 65 mm behind the torso line, in the case of a non-
rigid-webbing-type routing device or a deployable routing device, or at 
least 100 mm

[[Page 47589]]

behind the torso line, in the case of a fixed rigid routing device; and
    (c) when tested after being installed as it is intended to be used, 
is of sufficient strength to withstand, with the user-ready tether 
anchorage, the load referred to in S6.3.4 or S6.3.4.1, as applicable.
    S6.3  Strength requirements for tether anchorages. Subject to 
S6.3.2, a vehicle manufactured from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 
2001 may, at the manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably 
selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle), 
meet the requirements of S6.3.1 or S6.3.4. Subject to S6.3.2, vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 must meet the requirements 
of S6.3.1 of this standard.
    S6.3.1  Subject to S6.3.2, when tested in accordance with S8, after 
preloading the device with a force of 500 N, point X of the SFAD must 
not be displaced horizontally more than 125 mm during the application 
of the force.
* * * * *
    S6.3.4  Subject to subsections S6.3.4.1 and S6.3.4.2, every user-
ready tether anchorage in a row of designated seating positions shall, 
when tested, withstand the application of a force of 10,000 N--
    (a) applied by means of one of the following types of test devices, 
installed as a child restraint system would be installed in accordance 
with the manufacturer's installation instructions, namely,
    (1) SFAD 1, to test a tether anchorage at a designated seating 
position that does not have a child restraint anchorage system; or
    (2) SFAD 2, to test a tether anchorage at a designated seating 
position that has a child restraint anchorage system;
    (b) applied--
    (1) in a forward direction parallel to the vehicle's vertical 
longitudinal plane through the X point on the test device, and,
    (2) initially, along a horizontal line or along any line below or 
above that line that is at an angle to that line of not more than 5 
degrees;
    (c) approximately linearly over a time, at the option of the 
vehicle manufacturer, of not more than 30 seconds, at any onset force 
rate of not more than 135 000 N/s; and
    (d) maintained at a 10,000 N level for one second.
    S6.3.4.1  Until September 1, 2001, every user-ready tether 
anchorage in a row of designated seating positions in a passenger car 
may, when tested, subject to subsection S6.3.4.2, withstand the 
application of a force of 5,300 N, which force shall be--
    (a) applied by means of a belt strap that--
    (1) extends not less than 250 mm forward from the vertical plane 
touching the rear top edge of the vehicle seat back,
    (2) is fitted at one end with suitable hardware for applying the 
force and at the other end with a bracket for the attachment of the 
user-ready tether anchorage, and
    (3) passes over the top of the vehicle seat back as shown in Figure 
19 of this standard;
    (b) applied--
    (1) in a forward direction parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal 
vertical plane, and
    (2) initially, along a horizontal line or along any line below that 
line that is at an angle to that line of not more than 20 degrees;
    (c) attained within 30 seconds, at any onset force rate of not more 
than 135,000 N/s; and
    (d) maintained at a 5,300 N level for one second.
    S6.3.4.2  If the zones in which tether anchorages are located 
overlap and if, in the overlap area, a user-ready tether anchorage is 
installed that is designed to accept the tether strap hooks of two 
restraint systems simultaneously, both portions of the tether anchorage 
that are designed to bind with a tether strap hook shall withstand the 
force referred to in subsection S6.3.4 or S6.3.4.1, as the case may be, 
applied to both portions simultaneously.
    S6.3.4.3  If a row of designated seating positions has more than 
one user-ready tether anchorage, the force referred to in S6.3.4, 
S6.3.4.1 or S6.3.4.2, as the case may be, shall be applied 
simultaneously in the manner specified in the relevant subsection.
    S6.3.4.4  The strength requirement tests shall be conducted with 
the vehicle seat adjusted to its full rearward and full downward 
position and the seat back in its most upright position. When SFAD 2 is 
used in testing and cannot be attached to the lower anchorages with the 
seat back in this position, adjust the seat back as recommended by the 
manufacturer in its instructions for attaching child restraints. If no 
instructions are provided, adjust the seat back to the position that 
enables SFAD 2 to attach to the lower anchorages that is the closest to 
the most upright position.
    S7. Test conditions for testing tether anchorages.
* * * * *
    (a) Vehicle seats are adjusted to their full rearward and full 
downward position and the seat back is placed in its most upright 
position. When SFAD 2 is used in testing and cannot be attached to the 
lower anchorages with the seat back in this position, adjust the seat 
back as recommended by the manufacturer in its instructions for 
attaching child restraints. If no instructions are provided, adjust the 
seat back to the position that enables SFAD 2 to attach to the lower 
anchorages that is the closest to the most upright position.
* * * * *
    S8. Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of 
S6.3.1 and S6.3.3 when tested according to the following procedures. 
Where a range of values is specified, the vehicle shall be able to meet 
the requirements at all points within the range. For testing specified 
in the procedures, the SFAD used in the test is connected to the 
anchorage by means of a steel cable that is fitted at one end with a 
high strength steel tether hook for attachment to the tether anchorage. 
The tether hook meets the specifications in Standard No. 213 
(Sec. 571.213) as to the configuration and geometry of tether hooks 
required by that standard. A second steel cable is connected to the X 
point through which the test force is applied.
    S8.1  Apply the force specified in S6.3.1 as follows--
    (a) Use the following specified test device, as appropriate:
    (1) SFAD 1, to test a tether anchorage at a designated seating 
position that does not have a child restraint anchorage system; or,
    (2) SFAD 2, to test a tether anchorage at a designated seating 
position that has a child restraint anchorage system.
    (b) Attach the SFAD 1 to the vehicle seat using the vehicle belts 
or the SFAD 2 to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage 
system, as appropriate, and attach the test device to the tether 
anchorage, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided 
pursuant to S12 of this standard. For the testing specified in this 
procedure, if SFAD 1 cannot be attached using the vehicle belts because 
of the location of the vehicle belt buckle, the test device shall be 
attached by material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater 
than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly 
installed as original equipment at that seating position. The geometry 
of the attachment shall duplicate the geometry, at the pre-load point, 
of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly. All 
belt systems used to attach SFAD 1 shall be tightened to a tension of 
not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as

[[Page 47590]]

measured by a load cell used on the webbing portion of the belt. A 
rearward force of 135 N  15 N shall be applied to the 
center of the lower front crossmember of SFAD 2 to press the device 
against the seat back as the fore-aft position of the rearward 
extensions of the SFAD is adjusted to remove any slack or tension.
    (c) Apply the force--
    (1) Initially, in a forward direction in a vertical longitudinal 
plane and through the Point X on the test device; and
    (2) Initially, along a line through the X point and at an angle of 
10  5 degrees above the horizontal. Apply a preload force 
of 500 N to measure the angle; and then
    (3) Increase the pull force as linearly as practicable to a full 
force application of 15,000 N in not less than 24 seconds and not more 
than 30 seconds, and maintain at a 15,000 N level for 1 second.
    S8.2  Apply the force specified in S6.3.2 as follows:
* * * * *
    S9  Requirements for the lower anchorages of the child restraint 
anchorage system. As an alternative to complying with the requirements 
of S9, a vehicle manufactured from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2002 
may, at the manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably 
selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle), 
meet the requirements in S15 of this standard. Vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2002 must meet the requirements of S9 of this 
standard.
* * * * *
    S9.1.1  * * *
    (a) Are 6 mm  .1 mm in diameter;
* * * * *
    (f) Are an integral and permanent part of the vehicle or vehicle 
seat; and
* * * * *
    S9.3  * * *
    (c) To facilitate installation of the CRF in a vehicle seat, the 
side, back and top frames of the CRF may be removed for installation in 
the vehicle, as indicated in Figure 1A of this standard.
* * * * *
    S9.4.1  When tested in accordance with S11, the lower anchorages 
shall not allow point X on SFAD 2 to be displaced horizontally more 
than 125 mm, after preloading the device, when--
    (a) A force of 11,000 N is applied in a forward direction in a 
vertical longitudinal plane that is parallel (0  5 degrees) 
to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline; and
* * * * *
    S9.4.1.1  Forces described in S9.4.1(a), forward direction, shall 
be applied with an initial force application angle of 10  5 
degrees above the horizontal. Forces described in S9.4.1(b), lateral 
direction, shall be applied horizontally (0  5 degrees).
* * * * *
    S11. Test procedure.  * * *
    (a) Forward force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating 
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child 
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. A 
rearward force of 135  15 N shall be applied to the center 
of the lower front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press the device against the 
seat back as the fore-aft position of the rearward extensions of the 
SFAD is adjusted to remove any slack or tension. Apply a preload force 
of 500 N at point X of the test device. Increase the pull force as 
linearly as practicable to a full force application of 11,000 N in not 
less than 24 seconds and not more than 30 seconds, and maintain at an 
11,000 N level for 10 seconds.
    (b) Lateral force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating 
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child 
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. A 
rearward force of 135  15 N shall be applied to the center 
of the lower front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press the device against the 
seat back as the fore-aft position of the rearward extensions of the 
SFAD is adjusted to remove any slack or tension. Apply a preload force 
of 500 N at point X of the test device. Increase the pull force as 
linearly as practicable to a full force application of 5,000 N in not 
less than 24 seconds and not more than 30 seconds, and maintain at a 
5,000 N level for 10 seconds.
    S12.  * * *
    (b) In the case of vehicles required to be marked as specified in 
paragraphs S4.1, S9.5(a), or S15.4, explain the meaning of markings 
provided to locate the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage 
systems; and
    (c) Include instructions that provide a step-by-step procedure, 
including diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint system's 
tether strap to the tether anchorages.
* * * * *
    S15  Alternative to complying with the requirements of S9. As an 
alternative to complying with the requirements of S9, a vehicle 
manufactured from September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2002 may, at the 
manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably selected prior to, 
or at the time of, certification of the vehicle), meet the requirements 
in S15 of this standard. Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2002 must meet the requirements of S9 of this standard.
    S15.1  Dimensions and installation requirements.
    S15.1.1  General. The vehicle anchorages are positioned near the 
seat bight. The location of the anchorages is defined with respect to 
the CRF. If the vehicle seat is adjustable, it is adjusted as 
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer for use with child restraint 
systems.
    S15.1.2  Anchorage dimensions and location
    S15.1.2.1  The lower anchorages shall consist of two bars that--
    (a) Are 6 mm  .1 mm in diameter;
    (b) Are straight, horizontal and transverse;
    (c) Are not less than 25 mm in length;
    (d) Can be connected to, over their entire length, as specified in 
paragraph S15.1.2.1(c), by the connectors of a child restraint system;
    (e) Are 280 mm apart, measured from the center of the length of one 
bar to the center of the length of the other bar; and
    (f) Are an integral and permanent part of the vehicle or vehicle 
seat.
    S15.1.2.2  (a) The anchorage bars are located at the vehicle 
seating position with the aid of and with respect to the CRF rearward 
extensions, with the CRF placed against or near the vehicle seat back. 
With the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat 
cushion, the bottom surface shall have attitude angles within the 
limits in the following table, angles measured relative to the vehicle 
horizontal, longitudinal and transverse reference planes.

                          Table to S15.1.2.2(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitch......................................................      15 deg.
                                                                   10 d
                                                                       e
Roll.......................................................       0 deg.
                                                                   5 de
                                                                       g
Yaw........................................................       0 deg.
                                                                   10 d
                                                                       e
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: An explanation of the above angles is given in Figure 1.

    (b) With adjustable seats adjusted as described in S15.1.2.2(c), 
each lower anchorage bar shall be located so that a vertical transverse 
plane intersecting the center of the bar is:
    (1) Not more than 70 mm behind point Z of the CRF, measured 
parallel to the bottom surface of the CRF and to the center of the bar, 
with the CRF rear surface against the seat back; and
    (2) Not less than 120 mm behind the vehicle seating reference 
point, measured horizontally and to the center of the bar. (Note: To 
facilitate installation of the CRF in a vehicle seat, the CRF may be 
constructed of smaller

[[Page 47591]]

separable parts and assembled in the vehicle seat. Alternatively, 
vehicle components may be removed to allow access.)
    (c) Adjustable seats are adjusted as recommended by the vehicle 
manufacturer for use with child restraint systems.
    S15.2  Static Strength Requirements.
    S15.2.1  The strength of the anchorages shall be determined using 
the procedure of S15.3 to apply forces to the SFAD 2, installed in the 
vehicle seating position and engaged with the anchorages. The vehicle 
seat shall be installed in the vehicle, or in sufficient parts of the 
vehicle so as to be representative of the strength and rigidity of the 
vehicle structure. If the seat is adjustable, it shall be placed in the 
position recommended by the vehicle manufacturer for use with child 
restraint systems. If no adjusted position is recommended, the seat 
shall be placed in any position, at the agency's option.
    S15.2.2  Horizontal excursion of point X during application of the 
8 kN and 5 kN forces shall be not more than 125 mm, after preloading 
the device.
    S15.3  Forces and directions.
    S15.3.1  A rearward force of 135 N  15 N shall be 
applied to the center of the lower front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press 
the device against the seat back as the fore-aft position of the 
rearward extensions of the SFAD is adjusted to remove any slack or 
tension. Forces shall be applied to SFAD 2 in forward and lateral 
directions according to the following table.

              Table to S15.3.1.--Directions of Test Forces
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward.....................  0 deg.    8 kN 
                               5 deg..               0.25 kN
Lateral.....................  75 deg.   5 kN 
                               5 deg. (to both       0.25 kN
                               sides of straight
                               forward).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S15.3.2  Forces in the forward direction shall be applied with an 
initial force application angle of 10  5 degrees above the 
horizontal. Lateral forces shall be applied horizontally (0 deg. 
 5 deg.). A pre-load force of 500 N  25 N shall 
be applied at the prescribed loading point (point X) in Figure 17. The 
force shall be increased to 8 kN  0.25 kN for forward 
tests, or to 5 kN  0.25 kN for lateral tests. Full 
application of the force shall be achieved within a time period of 2 
seconds or less. The force shall be maintained for a period of 0.25 
seconds  0.05 seconds.
    S15.3.3  If anchorages for more than one child restraint anchorage 
system are installed in the vehicle seat assembly and not directly into 
the vehicle structure, the forces described in S15.3 shall be applied 
simultaneously to SFADs engaged with the anchorages at each seating 
position.
    S15.4  Marking and conspicuity of the lower anchorages. At least 
one anchorage bar (when deployed for use), one guidance fixture, or one 
seat marking feature shall be readily visible to the person installing 
a CRF. Storable anchorages shall be provided with a telltale or label 
that is visible when the anchorage is stored.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 47592]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.014



[[Page 47593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.015



[[Page 47594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.016



[[Page 47595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.017



[[Page 47596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.018



[[Page 47597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.019



[[Page 47598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.020



[[Page 47599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.021



[[Page 47600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.022



[[Page 47601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.023



[[Page 47602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.024



[[Page 47603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.025



[[Page 47604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.026



[[Page 47605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.027



[[Page 47606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.028



[[Page 47607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.029



[[Page 47608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU99.030



    Issued on August 18, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-22174 Filed 8-25-99; 3:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C