[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 147 (Monday, July 31, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46628-46643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19123]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-7648]
RIN 2127-AH 86


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 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 a number of issues raised by 
petitions for reconsideration of the agency's March 1999 final rule 
establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child 
Restraint Anchorage Systems, and of the agency's August 1999 final rule 
responding to the first round of petitions. Standard No. 225 has 
required vehicle manufacturers to provide the upper (tether) anchorage 
of a child restraint anchorage system in some of their vehicles since 
September 1, 1999. It also requires the installation of the lower 
anchorages of those systems in some vehicles beginning September 1, 
2000.
    In response to concerns of several petitioners about leadtime for 
and the

[[Page 46629]]

stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in the 
March 1999 final rule, our August 1999 rule 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 for tether anchorages 
set by the March 1999 final rule or those previously established by 
Transport Canada. Manufacturers also have the alternative of meeting 
the requirements for lower anchorages set by the March 1999 final rule, 
or those consistent with a draft standard being developed by a working 
group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The 
temporary alternative for tether anchorages was to last until September 
1, 2001, and that for lower anchorages until September 1, 2002. In 
response to petitions for reconsideration, today's rule extends the 
temporary alternatives until September 1, 2004.
    This document also addresses certain other issues that need to be 
resolved or clarified concerning the installation of child restraint 
anchorage systems in vehicles and how those systems are to be tested in 
the agency's compliance tests. Other issues raised by the petitions for 
reconsideration will be addressed in a subsequent document.

DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective August 30, 2000.
    If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by September 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, 
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document 
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, 
D.C., 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For nonlegal issues: Michael Huntley, (202-366-0029), Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA.
    For legal issues: Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(202-366-2992), NHTSA.
    You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
    a. The Most Important Changes Made By This Final Rule
    1. Extension of Compliance Options until 2004
    2. Other Issues Relating to Testing of Anchorage Systems
    b. Putting This Rule in Perspective
    2. Petitions for Reconsideration of March 1999 Final Rule
    3. August 1999 Final Rule Responding to Petitions for 
Reconsideration
    4. Petitions for Reconsideration of August 1999 Final Rule
    5. To What Reconsideration Issues Does this Rule Respond?
    6. The Remaining Issues
II. Extending the Compliance Options Until 2004
    a. What did the Petitioners Request?
    b. NHTSA Decides to Extend the Compliance Options
III. Changes to the Alternative ISO-Based Lower Anchorages 
Requirements of S15
    a. Why Are Changes Needed to S15?
    b. Are the Specific Provisions of S15.1.2.1 (d) and (e) 
Necessary?
    c. Can the Lower Bars Be Bolted into the Vehicle?
    d. Is Horizontal Excursion of Point X on the Static Force 
Application Device (SFAD) Measured Relative to an Undeformed Part of 
the Vehicle Body?
    e. Can the Marking Requirements of S15.4 Be Satisfied by 
Installable Guidance Fixtures?
IV. Other Issues Relating to Installation and Testing of Anchorage 
Systems
    a. Adjusting the Seat Back When Using SFAD 2
    b. Locating a Tether Anchorage Using the 3-Dimensional Manikin
    c. Reducing the Height of the Child Restraint Fixture (CRF)
    d. When Fitting the CRF is Impracticable e. Subjecting Tether 
Anchorages and Lower Anchorages to a Single Pull Test
    f. Simultaneously Testing LATCH Systems
    g. Requirement to Identify Vehicles Certified to the Vehicle 
Requirements During the Phase-in
V. Request to Reconsider Owner's Manual Requirement
VI. Issues Relating to Small Manufacturers and Manufacturers With 
Temporary Exemptions
    a. Alternative Phase-In Schedule for Small Manufacturers
    b. Manufacturers With Temporary Exemption from Air Bag 
Requirement
VII. Reasons for the Effective Date of This Rule
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    a. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures
    b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    c. Executive Order 13132
    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. Overview

a. The Most Important Changes Made by this Final Rule

1. Extension of Compliance Options Until 2004
    This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of final 
rules published March 5, 1999 and August 31, 1999 establishing Federal 
motor vehicle safety requirements for child restraint anchorage 
systems. This document extends the period within which vehicle 
manufacturers may choose certain compliance options in certifying to 
Standard No. 225. Manufacturers were given the option of certifying 
tether anchorages to (1) Requirements that are consistent with those 
set by Transport Canada, or (2) the requirements set forth in the March 
1999 final rule. The option was to expire September 1, 2001. Vehicle 
manufacturers also were given the option of certifying the lower 
anchorages of the anchorage system to (1) Requirements consistent with 
those set by a draft ISO standard, or (2) requirements set forth in the 
March 1999 final rule. The option was to expire September 1, 2002. This 
rule extends both of these expiration dates to September 1, 2004.
2. Other Issues Relating to Testing of Anchorage Systems
    This final rule also addresses other issues that need to be 
resolved or clarified concerning the installation of child restraint 
anchorage systems in vehicles. It addresses the configuration 
requirements for the bars in S15 of Standard No. 225, and various 
aspects of the procedures for testing anchorages. It also addresses 
several issues concerning the applicability of the standard to 
manufacturers of particular types of vehicles.

b. Putting This Rule in Perspective

1. March 1999 Final Rule
    On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage 
Systems (64 FR 10786, docket 98-3390, notice 2). The standard requires 
vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with child restraint anchorage 
systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat 
belts.
    The new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage. 
Each lower anchorage includes a rigid round rod or bar onto which the 
connector of a child restraint system can be snapped. The bars will be 
located at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. 
The upper

[[Page 46630]]

anchorage is a fixture to which the tether of a child restraint system 
can be hooked.
    For convenience, this document refers to the three-point child 
restraint anchorage system as the ``LATCH'' system. ``LATCH'' stands 
for the phrase ``Lower Anchors and Tether for Children.'' LATCH was 
coined by some manufacturers and retailers for use in educating the 
public on the availability and use of the new system, and in marketing 
the system.
    The standard required vehicle manufacturers to begin phasing-in the 
tether anchorage of the LATCH system in the production year beginning 
September 1, 1999, with full implementation beginning September 1, 
2000. Manufacturers are required to begin phasing-in the lower 
anchorages in the production year beginning on September 1, 2000, with 
full implementation beginning September 1, 2002.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The March 1999 final rule specified that, beginning 
September 1, 1999, 80 percent of a manufacturer's passenger cars 
were required to be equipped with tether anchorages, while all 
vehicles covered by the standard (including light trucks, vans, and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 8,500 or less and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or 
less) are required to comply with the requirements by September 1, 
2000. The final rule specified a 3-year phase-in period for the 
lower vehicle anchorages, which required 20 percent of each 
manufacturer's fleet to be equipped with compliant lower anchorages 
beginning September 1, 2000, 50 percent beginning September 1, 2001, 
and 100 percent beginning September 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Petitions for Reconsideration of the March 1999 Final Rule
    We received petitions for reconsideration of the March 1999 final 
rule from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (``Alliance'')(whose 
members were then BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, 
Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo),\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Later submissions from the Alliance on Standard No. 225 list 
Fiat, Mitsubishi, and Isuzu also as members of the group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vehicle manufacturers asked us to reconsider certain 
performance and other requirements. Some of them expressed concern 
about the strength requirements for the tether anchorage and the lower 
bars, and asserted that:
    (1) There is no safety need for requirements as stringent as those 
specified (i.e., for a 15,000 N strength requirement for tether 
anchorages (S6.3 and S8.1) and a 11,000 N strength requirement for the 
LATCH system lower anchorages (S9.4.1(a)) \3\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Not all petitioners addressing this subject believe the 
strength requirements were too stringent. Petitioner E-Z-On Products 
suggested in its petition for reconsideration that we should 
consider increasing the strength requirements for the tether 
anchorage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) They could provide tether and lower anchorages meeting less-
stringent Canadian requirements for the tether anchorage and less-
stringent requirements for lower anchorages set forth in a draft 
standard being developed by a working group of the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) \4\, by the compliance dates set 
forth in the March 1999 final rule, but they could not provide tether 
and lower anchorages meeting the more-stringent strength requirements 
established in that rule by those dates; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ISO is a worldwide voluntary federation of ISO member 
bodies. The draft ISO standard, ISO/22/12/WG1, is under development 
by Working Group 1 of the ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Because the March 1999 final rule applied to LATCH and tether 
anchorages voluntarily installed on vehicles after September 1, 1999, 
manufacturers would have to tear out LATCH and tether anchorages that 
they had voluntarily installed beyond the number required by the March 
1999 rule because the anchorages could not meet the strength 
requirements of the rule.
    The Alliance suggested that the agency either delay the effective 
date of the rule or adopt the Canadian requirements for the tether 
anchorage and the draft ISO requirements for the lower anchorages.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The most significant differences between the Canadian 
requirements and those in our March 1999 final rule are Canada's 
specification of a lower force (10,000 Newtons (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). The draft ISO standard differs from our rule with 
respect to, among other issues, the magnitude of the force that is 
applied to the lower anchorages (8,000 N, instead of 11,000 N) and 
the rate of application of the force. For a discussion of these and 
other differences, see the August 31, 1999 final rule, footnotes 6 
and 10, 64 FR at 47569-47571.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. August 1999 Final Rule Responding to Petitions for Reconsideration
    In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about 
leadtime for and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other 
requirements in the March 1999 final rule, NHTSA published a final rule 
on August 31, 1999 (64 FR 47566, docket 99-6160). Among other things, 
the August 1999 rule permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet 
alternative requirements during an initial several year period. Until 
September 1, 2001, manufacturers were permitted to meet either the 
requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the less-stringent 
Canadian requirements for tether anchorages. Until September 1, 2002, 
manufacturers were permitted to meet the requirements for the lower 
anchorages consistent with those set forth in the draft ISO standard.
    NHTSA balanced the benefits associated with vehicle manufacturers 
providing the new tether and lower anchorages, albeit ones meeting the 
less-stringent Canadian and draft ISO requirements, in accordance with 
the original schedule against the possible consequences of not 
providing for that alternative means of compliance. One possible 
consequence could have been a delay in the introduction of the new 
tether and lower anchorages. We might have had to extend the leadtime 
for installation of anchorages that met the strength requirements of 
the March 1999 rule by several years or establish a more drawn out 
phase-in schedule. Another consequence could have been that 
manufacturers would have had to remove voluntarily-installed tether 
anchorages and LATCH systems that did not meet the requirements of the 
March 1999 final rule, even if they did meet the Canadian and draft ISO 
requirements.
    We concluded that, on balance, safety would be best served if the 
Canadian and draft ISO requirements were allowed as a compliance option 
for an interim period. We determined that the early availability of 
tether anchorages, even ones meeting the Canadian requirements, would 
promote safety by increasing the likelihood that parents will attach a 
top tether on a child restraint system. Compared to an untethered child 
restraint, a tethered child restraint offers improved protection 
against head impact in a crash. A tether anchorage that complies with 
the Canadian strength requirement will offer a level of safety that is 
significantly better than the one that would exist with no tether 
anchorage at all. We similarly concluded that lower anchorages meeting 
the draft ISO requirements would provide safety benefits for parents 
who have difficulty attaching a child restraint correctly in a vehicle 
or whose vehicle seats are incompatible with child restraints. Thus, 
the agency's adoption of these interim compliance alternatives made it 
possible to begin reaping the benefits of LATCH systems sooner than 
would

[[Page 46631]]

have been possible under the March 1999 final rule.
    The August 1999 final rule also responded to other issues. With 
regard to some issues, such as some of the technical ones addressing 
specifics on how an anchorage is to be tested and limiting the 
information that manufacturers have to provide in vehicle owners 
manuals on LATCH systems, the agency granted requests to amend the 
March 1999 rule. For some of the other issues, the agency denied or 
partially granted the petitions for reconsideration, which prompted 
some manufacturers to re-petition the agency to reconsider the 
decisions based on new information.
4. Petitions for Reconsideration of the August 1999 Final Rule
    Petitions for reconsideration of the August 1999 final rule were 
submitted by the Alliance, Ford, Volkswagen, and Keiper GmbH & Co. 
(Keiper).
    The petitions from the Alliance and Volkswagen \6\ repeated or 
elaborated on many issues that were in the Alliance's original petition 
for reconsideration of the March 1999 final rule and that were not 
addressed by the August 1999 document (see I.b.6, below). The 
Alliance's petition also made the following key requests pertaining to 
the decisions we made in the August 1999 final rule. We were asked to 
reconsider our decisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Volkswagen (VW) also asked in its October 14, 1999 petition 
whether a tether anchorage would comply with the March 1999 final 
rule if it consists of (1) a fixed and permanent anchorage installed 
in a vehicle seatback structure and (2) ``a deployable tether 
attachment device that could be removed without the use of any tools 
other than a screwdriver or a coin and separately stored until 
needed for attachment of a child restraint tether hook.'' We 
interpret Standard No. 225 as precluding such a tether anchorage. S3 
of the standard defines ``tether anchorage'' as a user-ready, 
permanently installed vehicle system. S6.1 requires tether 
anchorages to be accessible without the need for any tools (other 
than a screwdriver or coin) and once accessed, be ready for use 
without the need for any tools. These requirements are intended to 
ensure that a vehicle owner will be able to use the tether anchorage 
when needed, without having to search for a part or to install an 
attachment device. VW asked for reconsideration of S6.1 if the 
requirements precluded such a tether anchorage. VW's request appears 
untimely. S6.1 was adopted by the March 1999 final rule and we did 
not receive any petition for reconsideration of the ``user-ready'' 
and ``permanency'' requirements. Under our rulemaking regulation (49 
CFR Part 553), petitions for reconsideration must be received within 
45 days after publication of a final rule. Petitions for 
reconsideration received after that period will be considered 
petitions filed under our rulemaking procedures (Part 552). We note 
further that VW's document is incomplete as a petition for 
rulemaking. It does not provide sufficient information setting forth 
facts establishing that an order is necessary, and does not set 
forth a brief description of the substance of the order which VW 
believes should be issued (Sec. 552.4(c) and (d)). We will not 
process the document as a petition for rulemaking until further 
information is received from the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. To limit availability of the option that manufacturers may meet 
Canadian requirements for the tether anchorage until August 31, 2001 
(manufacturers asked for a one-year extension of the interim tether 
requirements, until August 31, 2002);
    B. To adopt specifications from the draft ISO standard that limit 
the design flexibility of the configuration of the lower bars;
    C. To deny the request to shorten the rate of application of the 
applied forces and the length of time the force is held (Keiper also 
made this request);
    D. To deny the request to require only two tether anchorages for 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) \7\ with five or fewer 
designated seating positions, and to deny the request to remove the 
requirement for a tether anchorage at a center rear seating position; 
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Multipurpose passenger vehicle'' is defined in 49 CFR 
Sec. 571.3 as ``a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-
speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which 
is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features 
for occasional off-road operation.''
    \8\ In allowing manufacturers the option of meeting Canadian 
requirements for tether anchorages, the August 1999 final rule 
permitted the installation of only two tether anchorages during the 
optional compliance period. The rule also relieved manufacturers 
from the requirement that one of the tether anchorages must be at a 
center seating position during the optional compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E. On aspects of the test procedures used in compliance tests of 
anchorages, including our denial of the recommendation to use a device 
other than the 3-dimensional H-point machine to determine whether a 
tether anchorage is within the required zone;
    F. To permit foldable or storable lower anchorages only during the 
period within which manufacturers may meet the draft ISO standard (this 
request was also made by Keiper);
    G. On reducing the size of the child restraint fixture 
(manufacturers ask that the fixture be further reduced); and
    H. To deny a request to remove the requirement that vehicle 
manufacturers provide step-by-step instructions on attaching a child 
restraint tether to the vehicle's tether anchorage.
    Ford petitioned for reconsideration of the August 1999 final rule's 
amendments to several aspects of the test procedure for testing tether 
anchorages, making the following key requests. We were asked to 
reconsider our decisions:
    I. To change the point at which displacement is measured when 
testing a tether anchorage using the test device that attaches to the 
vehicle seat by the vehicle's seat belt system; and
    J. To use a cable to apply the test forces to the tether 
anchorages, instead of high-strength webbing material.
    Ford also asked for clarification of various requirements set forth 
in Standard No. 225, and suggested technical corrections to the figures 
referenced in Standard No. 213.
5. To What Issues From the Petitions for Reconsideration Does This Rule 
Respond?
    This final rule:
    (1) Extends the period within which manufacturers may meet Canadian 
requirements for tether anchorages and draft ISO requirements for lower 
anchorages (addressing issue ``A'' in section I.b.4, supra); and

addresses issues relating to--

    (2) The configuration requirements for the bars set forth in S15 of 
Standard No. 225, (issue ``B'' in section I.b.4);
    (3) Various aspects of the test procedures for testing anchorages 
(issues ``E'' and ``G'' in section I.b.4); and
    (4) The applicability of the standard (to small manufacturers; to 
manufacturers of vehicles that cannot meet the pitch, roll and yaw 
requirements with the child restraint fixture installed; and to 
manufacturers of vehicles temporarily exempted from Standard No. 208's 
requirement to provide an air bag at the front passenger seating 
position).

This final rule also:

    (5) Denies a request from the Alliance asking for a one-year 
deferral of the requirement for detailed instructions in vehicle 
owner's manuals on attaching a child restraint's tether strap to the 
vehicle's anchorage (issue ``H'' in section I.b.4).
6. The Remaining Key Issues
    The key issues that we have yet to resolve from the petitions for 
reconsideration of the March and August 1999 final rules are listed 
below.
    We will be addressing issues relating to the requirements 
establishing the strength of the anchorages. Key issues pertain to:

--The 15,000 N strength requirement for tether anchorages (S6.3 and 
S8.1) and the 11,000 N strength requirement for the LATCH system lower 
anchorages (S9.4.1(a));
--The displacement limit of 125 mm; and
--The rate of application of the applied forces and length of time the 
force is held.
    As noted above, we received a number of petitions for 
reconsideration of the strength requirements of the

[[Page 46632]]

March 1999 final rule. Many petitioners believe that the strength 
requirements were too stringent and discussed their reasons for that 
conclusion. In elaborating on its petition submitted in response to the 
March 1999 final rule in favor of reducing the strength requirements, 
the Alliance submitted a paper dated February 29, 2000 (entry 6160-11 
in the docket) entitled, ``Engineering Basis for Strength Tests of 
Child Restraint Anchors (FMVSS 225) (February 16, 2000).'' The paper 
found that, based on a 27 kg mass (total mass of a child restraint 
system and child occupant) and a 27 g peak acceleration of a 1999 Dodge 
Intrepid vehicle in a frontal 30 mile per hour (mph) rigid barrier 
impact, the expected peak force on the child and child restraint is 
7,200 N. Based on this, the report concluded that Standard No. 225 
should specify a pull force of 8,000 N, and not 15,000 N. However, in 
following up on the analysis, Transport Canada substituted the crash 
pulses it had obtained in frontal 30 mph rigid barrier crash tests of 
1995 to 1999 model year vehicles. Transport Canada found that peak 
accelerations of many of these vehicles were higher than the 27 g used 
in the Alliance report and, if a heavy child restraint and child were 
using a child restraint anchorage system, the forces on the child 
restraint anchorage system could be higher than 12,000 N (entry 6160-
19). We are considering the merits of these comments.
    Ford suggested in a submission dated December 17, 1999 (6160-8, 
page 3) that the displacement criterion of 125 mm be applied in forward 
pull tests only at an 8,000 N force (9,000 N for SFAD 2 with tether 
strap attached), and that the ``ability to withstand'' criterion be the 
measure of compliance at higher forces. Ford suggests:

    To allow a single test to determine compliance with both 
Standard 225 and the ISO standard, the 8 kN force should be applied 
with an approximately linear increase in force over 2 seconds, with 
ISO displacement measured after 0.25 seconds and Standard 225 
displacement measured at the end of a 1 second hold period. After 
the hold period, force would increase roughly linearly to 15 kN over 
25 seconds (11 kN for an untethered SFAD 2), followed by a 2 second 
hold period (for both the 11 kN and 15 kN tests).

    We are considering the merits of this comment. An issue raised by 
the suggestion is the need for Standard No. 225's requirement for a 10-
second hold period for the lower LATCH anchorages.
    The Alliance suggested in its February 29 submission (6160-11) that 
an alternative approach to measuring displacement for determining 
compliance of the lower anchorages of a LATCH system is to use a 
sliding scale of excursion limits based on the available space where 
the child restraint system would be anchored. An excursion limit of 125 
mm would be used in smaller vehicles while vehicles with larger seating 
areas could have larger limits (page 17 et seq.).
    We are considering the merits of a sliding scale approach for 
determining compliance of the lower anchorages and the tether anchorage 
of LATCH systems. The sliding scale approach is also under 
consideration by Transport Canada for possible inclusion in that 
country's proposal for child restraint anchorage systems (6160-19).
    We will also be addressing whether to:
--Make the configuration requirements for the lower bars (S9.1) 
consistent with today's amendments to S15.1.2;
--Expand the zone in which the lower bars may be placed (S9.2);
--Permit foldable or storable lower anchorages past August 31, 2004; 
and
--Remove the requirement for a tether anchorage in a center seating 
position and a third tether anchorage in some MPVs.

    On the requirements that (1) all passenger vehicles with three 
forward-facing rear designated seating positions must have three tether 
anchorages at those positions and (2) all passenger vehicles with a 
center rear designated seating position must have a tether anchorage at 
that seat position, the Alliance submitted a document dated October 20, 
1999 to supplement its petition for reconsideration of the August 1999 
final rule (see docket 6160-6). The document suggests reasons why NHTSA 
should exclude certain vehicles from the requirements (page 8 et seq.). 
The Alliance included a suggestion that the following exclusions be 
added to the standard:

--A middle seating position which does not meet the requirements of the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1819, 
``Securing Child Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicle Rear Seats,'' 
provided that the manufacturer provides language in its vehicle owners 
manual specifically instructing owners that the seating position is not 
recommended for use with child restraints;
--A middle seating position where the seatback is divided into two or 
more sections which may be folded independently of each other, and the 
division between two sections lies substantially along the seating 
reference plane of the middle seating position; and
--A middle seating position with a folding seat where an installed 
child restraint would bar access to the rear seats.

    Further, the Alliance suggested in a June 2, 2000 submission that 
if an additional rear seating position is available in the vehicle, 
NHTSA should require this position to be equipped with a tether 
anchorage as a replacement for the exempted non-outboard anchorage 
position.
    We are considering the merits of the suggestion.
    We will also respond to the petitions for reconsideration that 
asked us to:
--Permit a LATCH system in the front passenger seating position in 
vehicles with or without an air bag on-off switch or an advanced air 
bag;
--Change the marking requirements (S9.5) for the lower bars; and
--Exclude backless booster seats from the requirement in Standard No. 
213 to provide the attachments for connecting to the lower anchors of a 
LATCH system.
    We will also be addressing the issues Ford raised in its petition 
for reconsideration of the August 1999 final rule.

II. Extending the Compliance Options Until 2004

a. What Did the Petitioners Request?

    The Alliance asked in its petition for reconsideration of the 
August 1999 final rule that we extend the time period in which they are 
permitted to meet the alternative compliance options adopted in the 
rule. In its petition, the Alliance requested a one-year extension of 
the compliance option for tether anchorages, i.e., until September 1, 
2002. (October 15, 1999 petition for reconsideration.) Later, the 
petitioner asked that the compliance option for tether anchorages and 
for lower anchorages be extended until September 1, 2004. (Letters 
dated December 23, 1999, February 28, 2000, and April 13, 2000.)
    Members of the Alliance, and other manufacturers, have indicated in 
submissions to Docket NHTSA 99-6160 that they are experiencing many 
difficulties designing and incorporating anchorages that meet the 
requirements prescribed in Standard No. 225 on several vehicles, 
especially sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks. They stated 
that they will need to make extensive structural changes to the 
affected vehicle models to meet the strength requirements of the March 
1999 final rule. They said that those changes will substantially 
increase the cost and mass of the vehicles (Ford and General

[[Page 46633]]

Motors have quantified the increases in submissions that have been 
granted confidentiality by NHTSA), and may result in possible 
elimination of some desirable features now offered as options to 
customers, such as adjustable front passenger seats and split bench 
seats. That elimination might be the necessary result of our 
requirements because, unlike sedans that can meet the strength 
requirements of the March 1999 final rule because the rear filler panel 
just behind the top of the rear seat provides a stiff anchor area, 
vehicles such as station wagons, hatchbacks, pickups and SUVs have no 
comparable place to anchor a tether strap straight behind the top of 
the seat. The seats and the vehicle structure would have to be 
substantially strengthened to withstand the strength requirements, 
which would require plant modifications and retooling of assembly 
lines. Petitioners have stated that these impacts are unwarranted, 
given their belief that the strength requirements are overly stringent 
and demand margins of safety much beyond what is necessary for 
reasonable crash protection.
    Manufacturers also raised concerns about how they are to design 
future vehicles to the rule's strength requirements. They stated that 
they petitioned for reconsideration of the March 1999 strength 
requirements in April 1999 and have not yet learned how the agency will 
resolve the issues. NHTSA has deferred responding to the objections to 
the strength requirements, partly to analyze the proposed regulation 
that Transport Canada will be issuing on the three-point child 
restraint anchorage system and the strength requirements of the 
proposal.\9\ This deferral of our response has made it difficult for 
manufacturers to decide whether to expend large resources to redesign 
model year (MY) 2002 and 2003 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Transport Canada has announced it is considering proposing a 
regulation that would set strength requirements for tether 
anchorages at 15,000 N, and which would specify strength 
requirements for lower anchorages at the 11,000 N level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA Decides To Extend the Compliance Options

    Extending the compliance options until September 1, 2004 (through 
MY 2004) will reduce the uncertainty facing manufacturers. We are 
continuing to consider the petitions for reconsideration of the 
strength requirements of the March 1999 rule. Today's final rule 
extending the availability of the alternative compliance options will 
provide us additional time to complete our analysis of the petitions 
for reconsideration and decide whether the strength requirements should 
be amended.
    Manufacturers have provided information supporting their contention 
that meeting the strength requirements of the March 1999 rule when the 
compliance options expire would entail extensive structural changes to 
their vehicles, resulting in considerable increases in the cost and 
mass of the vehicles. They state that they must now begin changing 
manufacturing processes for the vehicles produced after September 1, 
2002 (MY 2003). If the compliance options were not extended, 
manufacturers would have to decide whether to change their processes, 
on the assumption that NHTSA will not amend the requirements of the 
March 1999 final rule, and substantially redesign vehicles which could 
not comply, at substantial cost. Alternatively, they could decide not 
to change their manufacturing processes, on the assumption that NHTSA 
will amend the requirements of the March 1999 final rule. However, they 
would not be allowed to sell those vehicles if NHTSA were not to amend 
the March 1999 rule and their vehicles could not comply.
    Extending the compliance options until September 1, 2004 will help 
facilitate the installation of LATCH systems in vehicles. Manufacturers 
have indicated that, if the compliance options were not extended to 
2004, they would be unable to meet the current phase-in schedule 
established by the March 1999 rule, even if they could use the lower 
strength anchorages through the end of the phase-in schedule. Further, 
if the compliance options were not extended, many voluntarily-installed 
tether anchorages would be removed from the designs of MY 2002 vehicles 
and many voluntarily-installed LATCH systems would be removed from the 
designs of MY 2003 vehicles, because the systems do not meet the March 
1999 final rule and manufacturers do not know the requirements we will 
ultimately adopt. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we have 
decided to extend the compliance options until August 31, 2004.

III. Changes to the Alternative ISO-Based Lower Anchorages 
Requirements of S15

a. Why Are Changes Needed to S15?

    In its petition for reconsideration of the August 1999 final rule, 
the Alliance petitioned NHTSA to amend some aspects of the agency's 
incorporation of the draft ISO requirements for lower anchorages into 
S15 of Standard No. 225. (S15 sets forth the temporary compliance 
option available to manufacturers to meet draft ISO requirements for 
the lower anchorages.) The Alliance believes that there are 
inconsistencies between the draft ISO requirements and our August rule 
concerning the features of the lower anchorages (S15.1.2.1). 
Manufacturers that have been designing lower anchorages to meet the 
draft ISO requirements will not be able to meet Standard No. 225 
because of those inconsistencies. The petitioner believes that there is 
no reason for them and has petitioned us to remove them. Petitioner 
also asked for clarification of several other requirements.
    We have reviewed the petition and generally agree that the 
inconsistencies should be resolved.\10\ In adding the provisions of the 
draft ISO standard into Standard No. 225, we did not make any 
significant changes to the ISO provisions. However, some manufacturers 
have raised concerns that a few of the ISO provisions were meant to be 
design guides for vehicle manufacturers and were not intended as 
regulatory requirements. For instance, the ISO draft has a provision, 
which the August 1999 final rule added, that states that the lower 
anchorage bars must be 280 mm apart, center-to-center (S15.1.2.1(e)). 
As discussed immediately below, manufacturers have petitioned for 
reconsideration of the requirement in S15, believing that the distance 
should be nominally 280 mm, and not precisely 280 mm. A letter from the 
Alliance dated April 13, 2000 explains these differences in detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Some of the provisions in S9.1.1 of Standard No. 225 are 
identical to the ones in S15 addressed today. Our next final rule 
responding to pending issues from the petitions for reconsideration 
will address making changes to S9.1.1 of Standard No. 225 to reflect 
the changes made in today's document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Are the specific provisions of S15.1.2.1(d) and (e) necessary?

    S15.1.2.1(d) and (e) require that lower anchorage bars be made so 
that they can be connected to, over their entire 25 mm length, by the 
connectors of a child restraint system, and are 280 mm apart, measured 
from the center of the length of one bar to the center of the length of 
the other bar. The Alliance asked whether the requirements could be 
deleted as unnecessary. Our answer is yes. The requirements were 
adopted to ensure that the bars are sufficiently long and adequately 
spaced to couple effectively with the connectors of a child restraint 
system. These purposes can be achieved using the ``child restraint 
fixture'' (CRF) referenced in

[[Page 46634]]

Standard No. 225, because the CRF rearward extensions are 280 mm apart 
and are 25 mm wide (see Figure 2 of Standard No. 225). Further, under 
S15.1.2.2, the vehicle must allow attachment of the CRF. Thus, the 
CRF's successful attachment to the anchorages would confirm compliance 
with the intention that the anchorages are long enough to attach a 
child restraint system and spaced an appropriate distance apart.

c. Can the lower bars be bolted into the vehicle?

    S15.1.2.1(f) requires that the lower bars must be ``an integral and 
permanent part of the vehicle or vehicle seat.'' The Alliance asked 
whether bars that were bolted into the vehicle would be considered 
permanent and integral, ``just as bolted-in vehicle seats are permanent 
and integral?'' Our answer is that anchorages that are bolted into the 
vehicle are considered permanent and integral, provided that they 
cannot be removed without the use of a tool, such as a screwdriver or 
wrench. This is consistent with the approach taken in S5.9 of Standard 
No. 213 with respect to the ``permanent'' attachment of the components 
to a child restraint that enable the child restraint to fasten to a 
LATCH system (see 64 FR 47584). S5.9(a) states, in part, that: ``The 
components must be attached such that they can only be removed by use 
of a tool, such as a screwdriver.'' Specifying that the bars are 
permanently attached to the vehicle or vehicle seat such that they can 
only be removed by use of a tool, and specifying the type of tool, 
makes the requirement more objective while limiting how easily the bars 
can be removed. Limiting easy removal of the bars will increase the 
likelihood that the bars are in place when needed.

d. Is Horizontal Excursion of Point X on the Static Force Application 
Device (SFAD) Measured Relative to an Undeformed Part of the Vehicle 
Body?

    S15.2.2 specifies that horizontal excursion of point X on the 
Static Force Application Device (SFAD) shall be not more than 125 mm, 
after preloading the device. The Alliance asked whether the horizontal 
excursion is measured relative to an undeformed part of the vehicle 
body. Our answer is yes.
    The Alliance believes that movement of the vehicle body relative to 
the chassis frame during the Standard No. 225 static test is not 
relevant to child safety. Rather, the only relevant movement of the 
SFAD is movement relative to the body, particularly the front seats, 
etc., ahead of the SFAD. As such, for displacement limits, an 
undeformed reference frame should be used for measuring displacement in 
body-on-frame vehicles. The Alliance could not identify a reference 
point that would be appropriate for all body-on-frame vehicles, but 
instead has recommended that NHTSA incorporate language similar to that 
used in Standard No. 204, ``Steering Control Rearward Displacement (49 
CFR Sec. 571.204),'' which states that displacement should be measured 
``in relation to an undisturbed point on the vehicle.''
    We agree that it would be more appropriate to measure displacement 
relative to an undisturbed point on the vehicle body for the reasons 
provided by the Alliance. We have amended S15.2.2 and S9.4.1 to specify 
that horizontal excursion of point X is measured relative to an 
undisturbed point on the vehicle body.

e. Can the Marking Requirements of S15.4 Be Satisfied by Installable 
Guidance Fixtures?

    S15.4 specifies that ``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 the CRF * * *'' The guidance 
fixture may be permanent or nonpermanent (``installable,'' such as a 
snap-on accessory). The Alliance asked to add the parenthetical ``(when 
installed)'' after ``guidance fixture''. The petitioner suggested that 
the parenthetical should be added because NHTSA expressed an intent in 
the August 1999 final rule to incorporate the provisions of the draft 
ISO standard, and the ISO standard has been amended to include the 
parenthetical.
    We will not add the parenthetical. The parenthetical suggests that 
manufacturers could satisfy marking requirements if they provided the 
guidance fixtures without actually installing them. We have concerns 
that consumers will fail to realize the existence of the installable 
guidance fixtures if the fixtures are not already attached to the bars 
at the point of sale. If the guidance fixtures are attached to the 
bars, the vehicle owner will either leave them attached or must handle 
them him- or herself in removing them. That attention to the fixtures 
will make it more likely that owners will realize that the fixtures 
exist and will remember to use them when they are needed. To clarify 
S15.4, we are adding a sentence that makes it clear that that section's 
marking and conspicuity requirements are met by either a guidance 
fixture that is installed in a vehicle when the vehicle is offered for 
sale to the consumer, or by one anchorage bar (when deployed for use) 
or one seat marking feature.
    The Alliance suggested that the parenthetical should be added 
because NHTSA expressed an intent in the August 1999 final rule to 
incorporate the provisions of the draft ISO standard. NHTSA used the 
June 22, 1998 draft version of the ISO standard in developing the March 
1999 final rule. The June 1998 version did not have the parenthetical 
``(when installed)'' after ``guidance fixture.'' ISO added the 
parenthetical in a subsequent version of the draft ISO standard. In any 
event, we do not believe that this aspect of the current draft ISO 
standard is crucial to making sure that LATCH systems can be installed 
as quickly as possible, or that installing snap-on guidance fixtures is 
so arduous that it would delay introduction of the systems in vehicles.

IV. Other Issues Relating to Installation and Testing of Anchorage 
Systems

    The following amendments relate to the test procedures used in the 
interim to test tether anchorages and LATCH systems to the Canadian and 
draft ISO requirements, respectively. These changes are made in 
response to issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the 
rules.

a. Adjusting the Seat Back When Using SFAD 2

    The Alliance and Keiper asked in petitions for reconsideration of 
the March 1999 and August 1999 final rules whether a vehicle's seat 
back can be adjusted if the Static Force Application Device 2 (SFAD 2) 
cannot be attached to the lower anchorages with the seat back in its 
most upright position. In response, we have added a provision in 
today's rule that allows for adjustment of the seat back.
    The March 1999 final rule provides for the adjustment of the 
vehicle's seat back when testing a tether anchor or a LATCH system at 
the seating position. The March rule had specified that, for the 
purpose of testing the lower bars or the tether anchorage of a LATCH 
system, the seat back is placed in its most upright position. Toyota 
stated:

    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] can not 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) and S10(a) to allow for adjustment of 
the seat back for cases where the SFAD 2 can not be attached to the 
lower anchorages with the seat back in its most upright position.


[[Page 46635]]


    To address Toyota's concern, in our August 1999 rule we amended 
S7(a) to add the following statements to the test procedure for testing 
tether anchorages:

    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.

    Because the August 1999 rule did not address most testing issues 
concerning the lower anchors, we did not add the statement to S10(a). 
In their petitions for reconsideration of the August 1999 rule, the 
Alliance and Keiper, a vehicle seat manufacturer, asked us to add the 
statement to S10(a). We agree with the petitioners that the statement 
should be included in S10(a), and have added the provision to S10(a) 
for the same reasons we amended S7(a).

b. Locating a Tether Anchorage Using the 3-Dimensional Manikin

    The Alliance included in its October 1999 petition for 
reconsideration a request for us to reconsider, for the second time, 
S6.2, ``Location of the tether anchorage,'' 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).
    In the August 1999 rule, NHTSA denied the Alliance's request to use 
the design H-point to locate the tether anchor. The petitioner believed 
that--

    Because 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.

The petitioner emphasized that Canada uses the design H-point to locate 
the tether and argued that we should do the same.
    We did so for several reasons. We believed compliance tests would 
be easier to conduct if we used the manikin. This was because using the 
manikin would allow us to forego consulting with manufacturers to 
determine the location of the design H-point. We also stated that using 
the manikin results in an H-point measurement that is more 
representative of the real world than the design H-point. Further, we 
disagreed with the petitioner's belief that there were variability 
problems using the manikin. We stated that we have not encountered 
problems using the manikin to determine the H-point of a seating 
position for positioning the test dummies in Standard No. 208 and 214 
crash tests. We also stated that the manikin produces dummy positioning 
equivalent to that obtained by manufacturers using the device in their 
own test laboratories, and produces repeatable results when used 
repeatedly in the same vehicle. We stated that the position of the H-
point obtained using the manikin is very close to the H-point obtained 
using the 2-dimensional template. We thus believed that, to the extent 
needed, manufacturers can compensate for and design around the small 
differences. However, we allowed manufacturers optional use of the 
design H-point during the period in which they are permitted by 
Standard No. 225 to meet the Canadian requirements for tether 
anchorages.
    In its October 1999 petition for reconsideration, the Alliance 
reiterated that a round robin test program that its predecessor, the 
Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association (MVMA), undertook found that 
use of the 3-dimensional H-point machine did not achieve duplicate 
results when an identical vehicle was tested at different testing 
facilities. ``Differences were as much as 2 inches in some cases.'' 
Further, the petitioner believed that the H-point machine could be used 
to determine the seating position of a crash test dummy, where some 
variability may be inconsequential, whereas using the machine for the 
determination of anchorage zones is a different matter. The petitioner 
stated:

    A two inch (in all directions) uncertainty in H-Point location 
is not practicable when designing an anchorage location in a 
vehicle. Given the relatively close tolerance already specified for 
the anchorage zones, manufacturers cannot `compensate for and design 
around the small differences' as the agency apparently believes.

    We continue to believe that the H-point machine does not introduce 
excessive variability. However, on reconsideration, we have concluded 
that using the seating reference point (SgRP), as defined in 49 CFR 
571.3, instead of the 3-dimensional machine, will accomplish the 
purposes of the standard and will remove potential controversy. 
``Seating reference point (SgRP)'' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

the unique design H-point, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), 
which:
    (a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding 
position of each designated seating position, which includes 
consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and 
tilt, in a vehicle;
    (b) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 
1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure;
    (c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human 
torso and thigh; and
    (d) Is the reference point employed to position the two-
dimensional drafting template with the 95th percentile leg described 
in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95th 
percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is 
located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.
    Using the SgRP will be equivalent to using the ``design H-
point'' referenced in the part of

Standard No. 225 that incorporates Transport Canada's requirements for 
tether anchorages. S6.2.1 of the standard will be revised to specify 
that the zone within which the tether anchorage must be located is 
defined with reference to the seating reference point. We note that the 
figures in the standard that depict the zones refer to the ``H point.'' 
We will specify in the standard that for purposes of the figures, ``H 
Point'' is defined to mean seating reference point.

c. Reducing the Height of the Child Restraint Fixture

    Standard No. 225 requires vehicles and LATCH systems to allow the 
child restraint fixture (CRF) specified in the standard to be placed 
inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages. Several 
manufacturers petitioned for reconsideration of the March 1999 final 
rule asking us to reduce the size of the CRF described in the standard 
because it was larger than many child restraint systems. We agreed in 
the August 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration and amended 
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. We added Figure 1A to the standard to 
illustrate the CRF with the side and top frames removed.
    In its October 1999 petition for reconsideration of the August 1999 
response, the Alliance petitioned to reduce height of the back of the 
CRF. The Alliance believed that the 720 mm height of the CRF is 
inappropriate for certain types of vehicles that have roof lines that 
drop sharply downward near the back (e.g., sporty 2+2 passenger cars). 
In such vehicles, a 5th percentile female and most child restraints can 
fit into the rear seat, but the CRF, with a height of 720 mm, will not. 
The

[[Page 46636]]

petitioner suggested that NHTSA should reduce the height of the CRF to 
550 mm.
    NHTSA acknowledged in the August 1999 final rule responding to 
petitions for reconsideration that the CRF is larger than many child 
restraint systems, and that even if the CRF does not fit in a vehicle's 
rear seat, there will be child restraint models that will be small 
enough to fit. NHTSA is not opposed to reducing the height of the CRF 
to facilitate its installation in certain vehicles where the full-
height CRF (720 mm) cannot fit. However, instead of adopting the 550 mm 
height suggested by the Alliance, NHTSA believes that 560 mm is more 
appropriate, as discussed below.
    S5.2.1.1(a) of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR Sec. 571.213) prescribes 
the minimum seat back height for child restraint systems according to 
the recommended weight ranges for those restraint systems. Under 
Standard No. 213, child restraints certified for use by children 
weighing more than 20 pounds (9 kilograms (kg)) but less than 40 pounds 
(18 kg) (typically forward-facing restraints or convertible restraints 
(which are adjustable so that they can be used rear-facing by an infant 
or a very young child, and forward-facing by a toddler)) must have a 
minimum seat back height of (510 mm) and restraints that are for use by 
children weighing more than 40 pounds (18 kg) must have a minimum seat 
back height of 22 inches (560 mm). We are revising S9.3 of Standard No. 
225 to specify that, if necessary, the height of the CRF may be reduced 
to 560 mm. We believe that, with the height of the CRF reduced to 560 
mm and disassembled as provided for in the August 1999 rule, the device 
will be able to fit in the space provided by all vehicle seats.

d. When Fitting the CRF Is Impracticable

    S15.1.2.2 of Standard No. 225 (incorporating, for the interim, the 
draft ISO requirements for the lower anchorages of LATCH systems) 
specifies that the CRF is used to locate the lower bars. The CRF is 
placed against or near the vehicle seat back. With the CRF attached to 
the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion, S15.1.2.2 requires that 
the bottom surface of the CRF have attitude angles within certain 
limits (with angles measured relative to the vehicle horizontal, 
longitudinal and transverse reference planes). (Pitch must be 15 deg. 
 10 deg., roll 0 deg.  5 deg., and yaw 0 deg. 
 10 deg..) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A rulemaking document that we will be publishing later this 
year will be incorporating these pitch, roll and yaw requirements 
into the requirements of S9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition for reconsideration of the March 1999 final rule, 
Porsche asked that NHTSA amend Standard No. 225 to exclude rear-engine, 
4-seat passenger cars from the requirement that requires vehicles with 
not more than two rear designated seating positions to be equipped with 
a LATCH system at each rear seating position. The Porsche 911 is 
designed as a rear-engine, 4-seat vehicle, with the rear seats actually 
being two padded shells integrated into the body panel and separated by 
the middle tunnel used by the transmission. The backs of the seats are 
individually foldable to provide additional cargo space in case the 
compartment is not used for the transportation of passengers (only the 
seat padding folds, and not the actual seat structure as in typical 
foldable seats).
    The contour of the 911's seat shell, along with the 120-mm and 70-
mm spacing requirements, do not allow the CRF to be positioned in a 
stable or compliant manner. Given the shape of the seat/body shell, the 
spacing requirements in the regulation, and the interference of 
components behind the body shell, the lower anchorage points must be 
located so high in the shell that the positive pitch angle criteria (15 
+/-10 degrees) cannot be met, with the consequence that an installed 
child seat rests in an unstable, wobbly position with a negative pitch 
angle on the child seat bottom.
    NHTSA has met with Porsche to view a model year 2000 Porsche 911 
with prototype lower anchorages installed to visually examine the 
difficulties encountered as described above. (Summaries of the meetings 
have been placed in the docket.) Porsche has addressed numerous design 
alternatives presented by both NHTSA and Transport Canada in the 
meetings, and explained reasons underlying its conclusions that each 
alternative would not provide the necessary relief (i.e., use of soft 
attachments, incorporation of foldable anchorages, and use of extra 
seatback padding).
    We believe that incorporation of lower anchorages into the rear 
seating position of the Porsche 911 is impracticable, based on the 
following points:

--The proximity of the Porsche 911 body shell to the rear bucket seats, 
in conjunction with the spacing requirements for the lower LATCH 
anchorages in Standard No. 225, makes it impossible to locate the lower 
anchorages so that the CRF can meet the pitch, roll, and yaw 
requirements of the standard;
--Because the Porsche 911 is a rear engine vehicle, the anchorages 
cannot be moved and still meet the prescribed spacing requirements due 
to interference with transmission and suspension components located 
directly behind the rear seats; and
--There is not enough space behind the rear seating positions to 
accommodate foldable anchorages.
    We conclude that LATCH systems should not be required in rear 
seating positions where it is impossible, due to interference with 
transmission and/or suspension components located directly behind the 
rear seats, to locate the lower anchorages so as to make it possible to 
meet the attitude angles of S15.1.2.2.\12\ We believe that this 
decision will affect relatively few vehicles overall. We are not aware 
of any other model that cannot meet both spacing and pitch, roll, and 
yaw requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We have concluded that the proposed wording from Porsche 
regarding ``four seat rear engine vehicles'' is overly broad and 
should not be adopted. In the future, it may be practicable for some 
four seat rear engine vehicles to have a LATCH system in a rear 
designated seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not requiring Porsche in this situation to install a LATCH 
system in the front seat, unless it installs an on-off switch for the 
seat.\13\ (Porsche has a system that turns off the air bag(s) for the 
front passenger seating position when used with Porsche's child 
restraint that is specially fitted with a latch plate device that fits 
into a bracket on the vehicle. The system does not turn off the air bag 
when the device is not used, as would happen when child restraints 
other than Porsche's are used in the vehicle.) However, we will require 
manufacturers of vehicles that do not have a LATCH system in a rear 
designated seating positions under the exclusion, and no air bag on-off 
switch, to provide a tether anchorage for the front passenger seating 
position. The tether anchorage is required to increase the likelihood 
that when a forward-facing child restraint is installed in the front 
passenger seating position, in a frontal crash the back of the child 
restraint will be retained as far as possible from injury-causing 
surfaces. We will require the tether anchorage in the vehicles 
beginning September 1, 2001, to provide adequate leadtime. If a

[[Page 46637]]

vehicle is equipped with an air bag on-off switch, there must be a 
LATCH system in a designated passenger seating position in the front 
seat (see S5(c)(1)(ii) and (2)(ii) of Standard No. 225).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Vehicles are prohibited from having a LATCH system in a 
front passenger seating position in the absence of an on-off switch. 
The purpose of the prohibition is to reduce the likelihood that a 
child restraint system would be used in the front seat with an air 
bag. A LATCH system invites consumers to place a child restraint in 
the front seat and implies that the position is appropriate for 
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Subjecting Tether Anchorages and Lower Anchorages to a Single Pull 
Test

    The March 1999 final rule specified (S6.3.3) that the tether 
anchorage for a seating position need not meet requirements after the 
lower anchorages of the LATCH system of that position have met the 
standard's strength requirements. (We test a tether anchorage at a 
seating position that has the lower anchorages of a LATCH system by 
attaching the child restraint surrogate device (SFAD 2) to the lower 
anchorages and to the tether anchorage. Thus, in the tether anchorage 
test, both the lower anchorages and the tether anchorage are 
simultaneously stressed.) The Alliance asked that we also exclude 
tether anchorages from requirements if the lower bars at adjacent 
seating positions have been tested.
    The petitioner is referring to the case where there are two LATCH 
systems on the outboard seating positions of a 3-passenger seat, and 
the inboard anchorages of these systems are approximately 280 mm apart, 
so that it would be possible to install a child restraint in the center 
position. The petitioner is concerned that if one of the outboard LATCH 
systems is tested, NHTSA could test the center position tether using 
the two inboard anchorages, one of which was already tested--and 
weakened--in the previous test. We agree that an anchorage should not 
be subjected to more than one pull test. Anchorages may be weakened 
and/or distorted in a previous test and may not perform as they would 
in an actual crash.
    The March 1999 final rule specified (S9.4.2) that in the case of 
vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than one LATCH system, we 
may choose to test each LATCH system simultaneously or sequentially. 
``Sequential testing may, at the agency's option, include testing one 
system to the requirement of S9.4.1(a) [forward pull] and another 
system to S9.4.1(b) [lateral pull]. * * *'' The Alliance petitioned us 
to delete the provision allowing for sequential testing. The Alliance 
believes that the test of the first system could affect the results of 
a subsequent pull test to an adjacent LATCH system, and vice versa. The 
petitioner states that manufacturers cannot predict which test 
sequences would likely be most severe, so the sequential test 
requirement necessitates multiple development and compliance tests to 
investigate the interaction of various potential test sequences.
    We have decided to delete the sequential test provision. We do not 
need the provision to test the second LATCH system in a subsequent 
test.
    The March 1999 final rule also specified (S9.4.2) that the lower 
anchorage bars of a particular LATCH system need not meet further 
requirements after having met the forward-pull strength requirement or 
either lateral-pull requirement. The Alliance petitioned us to further 
specify that lower anchorages will not be subjected to further forces 
if they have been already subjected to a test assessing the strength of 
a tether anchorage. Petitioner believes that the tether anchorage test 
could weaken and/or distort the lower anchorage bars, so it would be 
inappropriate to subject the lower bars to further testing. It was an 
oversight not to have included the provision in S9.4.1. Thus, we have 
amended the section as suggested.

f. Simultaneously Testing LATCH Systems

    In its petition for reconsideration of the March 1999 and August 
1999 final rules, the Alliance asked us to consider amending the 
provisions in Standard No. 225 pertaining to the simultaneous testing 
of LATCH anchorages.
    There are a number of references in Standard No. 225 to 
simultaneous testing. S9.4.2 specifies, inter alia, that where vehicle 
seat assemblies are equipped with more than one LATCH system, the LATCH 
systems may be tested simultaneously. There is a comparable requirement 
in S15.3.3 under the option that permits manufacturers to meet the 
draft ISO requirements for an interim period. If anchorages for more 
than one LATCH system are installed in a vehicle seat assembly and not 
directly into the vehicle structure, the LATCH systems shall be tested 
simultaneously. A ``simultaneously tested'' provision is also found in 
S6.3.3 for testing tether anchorages to the 15,000 N strength 
requirement, and in S6.3.4.3 for testing tether anchorages for an 
interim period to the Canadian strength requirements.
    The Alliance addressed the issue of simultaneous testing of 
multiple anchorages in a seating row in its April 1999 petition for 
reconsideration. The Alliance believed that the provision was too broad 
because it required simultaneous testing of anchorage systems even when 
the width of a vehicle seat made it unlikely that all anchorage systems 
would be simultaneously used. The Alliance stated:

    In North America, because most child restraints are expected to 
be attached by webbing rather than by rigid attachments, there is 
added flexibility to install child restraints side-by-side. 
Therefore, the Alliance suggests that simultaneous testing be 
specified if the lower anchors for adjacent anchor systems are 120 
mm or more apart, measured laterally between the lateral centers of 
the anchor bars.

    Based on the above, the Alliance petitioned the agency to amend 
S9.4.2 to ``clarify that simultaneous testing applies [when testing 
LATCH systems] only when anchor forces from multiple child restraint 
anchorage systems are applied to a single vehicle seat assembly, apply 
only if there is 120 mm or more lateral spacing between adjacent 
anchors for adjacent anchorage systems, and do not apply when forces 
are transferred directly to the vehicle structure.''
    In a letter to the agency on April 3, 2000, DaimlerChrysler also 
suggested that S9.4.2 should be interpreted not to require simultaneous 
testing of three LATCH systems on a vehicle seat if the seat row is not 
wide enough to allow three child restraints to be installed at the same 
time. DaimlerChrysler said that it has measured the widths of 
conventional child restraints and has developed a method by which the 
agency could determine whether more than two child restraints could 
simultaneously fit on a vehicle seat. Based on measurements of a range 
of available child restraints, DaimlerChrysler contended that a center-
to-center distance between adjacent seating positions of at least 400 
mm is necessary to install child restraints in adjacent seating 
positions properly. The width of the SFAD 1 and SFAD 2 devices (280 mm 
and 320 mm, respectively) are significantly narrower than the 
representative child restraints identified by DaimlerChrysler, and 
thus, DaimlerChrysler believes, the SFAD devices should not be used to 
determine whether adjacent seating positions should be subjected to 
simultaneous testing by NHTSA.
    Based on its analysis, DaimlerChrysler recommended that adjacent 
seating positions should only be subject to simultaneous testing if two 
child restraints, 400 mm wide, can be properly installed side-by-side. 
To determine this, DaimlerChrysler recommended adoption of the 
following procedure:
    (a) Determine the geometric center of the seating position, as the 
midpoint between the geometric centers of the lower anchorages (bars) 
of the seating position.

[[Page 46638]]

    (b) Construct a vertical longitudinal plane intersecting the 
midpoint of each seating position.
    (c) Measure the distance between the midpoints of adjacent seating 
positions.
    (d) Do not test adjacent positions simultaneously if the distance 
between the midpoints of adjacent seating positions is less than 400 
mm.
    The approaches recommended in the April 1999 Alliance petition for 
reconsideration and in the April 2000 DaimlerChrysler request for 
interpretation--while different--yield the same minimum spacing between 
anchorages required for testing multiple child restraints in a seating 
row simultaneously. NHTSA concurs that where there are seat 
configurations where three adjacent seating positions are equipped with 
lower anchorages, but where it will be physically impossible to have 
three child restraints properly installed in these seating positions 
simultaneously, there is no need to test all three LATCH systems (or 
tether anchorages) simultaneously. We are adopting DaimlerChrysler's 
approach, and not the Alliance's, because it is more clearly 
understandable than the Alliance's approach for measuring the lateral 
spacing between lower anchorages for adjacent anchorage systems.

g. Requirement To Identify Vehicles Certified to the Vehicle 
Requirements During the Phase-In

    DaimlerChrysler petitioned for reconsideration of the requirement 
in the March 1999 final rule that during the tether anchor and LATCH 
system phase-in periods, manufacturers must, upon request from NHTSA, 
provide information identifying the vehicles that have been certified 
as complying with Standard No. 225's requirements (S13.1 and S14.1 of 
Standard No. 225; Sec. 596.5 of Part 596). The manufacturer also 
objected to the rule's provision that the manufacturer's designation of 
a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable (the ``irrevocability'' 
provision).
    We explained in the rule that, where a safety standard provides 
manufacturers a phase-in period for a requirement to take effect, the 
agency needs to know whether a vehicle has been certified as meeting 
the standard when it selects a vehicle to test. A phased-in requirement 
typically includes a reporting requirement for manufacturers to 
identify to NHTSA which vehicles have been certified to the standard, 
but the report is made after the end of a production year. To enable 
NHTSA to identify which vehicles have been certified as part of the 
phase-in fleet during the production year, upon request, manufacturers 
must identify the vehicles during the production year that have been 
certified as complying with Standard No. 225. In addition, the standard 
precludes a manufacturer--when confronted with an apparent 
noncompliance'from attempting to avoid a recall or civil penalty by 
asserting that it had satisfied the percentage phase-in requirements 
with other vehicle models. We believed then, and continue to do so now, 
that a manufacturer should be responsible for assuring that its 
certification of its vehicles is accurate and that consequences must 
attach if it fails to do so. In addition, we noted that such a response 
by a manufacturer would create obvious difficulties for the agency in 
managing its resources for carrying out its enforcement 
responsibilities.
    DaimlerChrysler stated that the reporting requirement and the 
irrevocability provision serve no safety function, are impracticable 
and overly burdensome, and should be deleted. With respect to the 
irrevocability clause, the petitioner stated that:

    When manufacturers plan to meet phase-in requirements, they 
consider which vehicle lines should comply with the regulation 
first. In doing so, to insure compliance, manufacturers plan to meet 
the phase-in requirement by including a percentage margin. During 
the production year, unforeseeable circumstances arise, such as 
supplier issues and production line issues, which make parts 
unavailable. Additionally, there are times when manufacturers comply 
with a phase-in by implementing running changes. These plans can be 
delayed, such that the vehicle may not phase-in until later than 
originally planned. If, in either of these instances, the 
manufacturer had made a prior declaration of vehicle compliance to 
the agency, they could be subject to non-compliance penalties even 
though their annual percentage of complying vehicles still meets or 
exceeds the minimum required. [Emphasis in text.]

    DaimlerChrysler's contention misconstrues the language of the 
standard. Manufacturers were not required to identify in advance those 
vehicle models that would comply with the requirements during the 
phase-in; they were only required to identify particular vehicles that 
were so certified. Thus, any changes due to ``unforeseen 
circumstances'' or running changes implemented during the model year 
would not cause any certification difficulties. A manufacturer would 
simply advise the agency which particular vehicles (e.g., those 
manufactured before a specific date) were certified as complying with 
the requirements of the standard. Accordingly, the provisions in S13.1, 
S14.1 and in 49 CFR Sec. 596.5 are retained.

V. Request to Reconsider Owner's Manual Requirement

    The March 1999 final rule included a requirement that vehicle 
owner's manuals must have step-by-step instructions, including 
diagrams, for properly attaching a child restraint to the lower anchors 
and tether anchor of a LATCH system. The Alliance asked in its April 
1999 petition for reconsideration that we delete the requirement. The 
Alliance stated that the requirement calls for too much detail, and 
that vehicle manufacturers will not know all the different types of 
child restraint attachments that may be on the market.
    Our August rule granted this request in part and denied it in part. 
We agreed that vehicle manufacturers may find it difficult to 
anticipate how different types of child restraints will be designed to 
attach to the lower anchor bars of a vehicle's LATCH system, and thus 
we deleted the requirement for detailed instructions about that issue. 
However, we decided to retain the requirement that vehicle owner's 
manuals provide detailed instructions on attaching a child restraint to 
a tether anchor. This was because Standard No. 213 specifies the 
configuration and geometry of the tether hook. Thus, we determined, 
vehicle manufacturers can develop their written instructions with the 
tether hook design in mind.
    The Alliance's October 1999 petition for reconsideration asked for 
reexamination of this decision based on leadtime. The Alliance asked 
that the effective date for the requirement on detailed instructions on 
the tether be deferred one year from September 1, 1999, ``which 
coincides with the date when the tether anchorage requirement becomes 
effective for 100% of passenger cars, and the applicable MPVs, trucks 
and buses.''
    The request is denied. The leadtime for the requirement was 
adequate, because manufacturers generally order owner's manuals three 
to four months (in June or July) before the start of the new model year 
of production. (See March 9, 1999 final rule amending the consumer 
information regulations to require a new rollover warning label.) The 
information is important to 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.

[[Page 46639]]

VI. Issues Relating to Small Manufacturers and Manufacturers With 
Temporary Exemptions

a. Alternative Phase-In Schedule for Small Manufacturers

    In its April 1999 petition for reconsideration of the March 1999 
final rule, the Coalition of Small Volume Automobile Manufacturers 
(COSVAM) stated that the March 1999 rule should provide an alternative 
phase-in for small manufacturers. COSVAM requested that a company with 
only one carline should be permitted to comply with the requirements 
for lower anchors beginning September 1, 2002, rather than September 1, 
2000. COSVAM indicated that its members produce fewer than 5,000 
vehicles per year worldwide.
    We are granting the request to provide small manufacturers more 
flexibility to install LATCH systems. We are providing that vehicles 
that are manufactured by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 
vehicles worldwide annually are not required to meet the requirements 
for lower anchors until September 1, 2002.

b. Manufacturers With Temporary Exemption From Air Bag Requirement

    S4 of Standard No. 225 generally requires vehicles without any rear 
designated seating positions to be equipped with a tether anchorage at 
each front passenger seating position. In those cases in which such a 
vehicle is equipped with an air bag on-off switch in accordance with 
S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208 (i.e., the vehicle either has no rear 
seating positions, or rear seating positions that are too small to 
accommodate a rear-facing child restraint), the vehicle must be 
equipped with a LATCH system in a front designated passenger seating 
position. If the vehicle does not have an on-off switch, the 
manufacturer is prohibited from equipping the front passenger seating 
position with a LATCH system.
    In a petition for reconsideration, Global Vehicle Services 
Corporation (Global) asks about the application of Standard No. 225 to 
vehicle manufacturers that have received a Part 555 temporary exemption 
from the air bag requirements of Standard No. 208. As a result of such 
a temporary exemption, exempted vehicles might not be equipped with a 
front passenger seat air bag.
    There are currently four vehicle manufacturers that have been 
granted exemptions until March 31, 2001, from the air bag requirements 
of Standard No. 208. Three of these manufacture two-seat convertibles, 
while the fourth manufactures a sport utility vehicle.
    For the purposes of whether a LATCH should be installed in the 
front seat of the vehicles, we have considered several factors. First 
is whether there is a rear seating position in which to place a LATCH 
system. If the vehicle has a rear designated seating position, a LATCH 
should be placed there, regardless of whether there is an air bag for 
the front passenger seating position. This is because children are 
safer seated in a rear seat than in the front seat, regardless of 
whether an air bag is installed. Second, if there is no rear seat in 
which to place a child, the question of whether a LATCH system should 
be at the front passenger designated seating position is answered by 
whether that position is equipped with an air bag. If an air bag is 
present that cannot be turned off, that seating position is unsuitable 
for a LATCH system.
    We consider a vehicle with no rear seat whose front seating 
position does not have any air bag (because of a temporary exemption) 
analogous to a vehicle with no rear seat whose front seating position 
is equipped with an air bag and an air bag on-off switch. In both 
vehicles, the front passenger seating position should be equipped with 
a LATCH system to fully realize the benefits associated with this 
improved method of securing child restraints. Thus, we have concluded 
that vehicles with no rear designated seating positions and no 
passenger seat air bag due to a temporary exemption must have a LATCH 
system installed at a front passenger seating position. However, 
convertibles need have only the lower anchorages of a LATCH system, 
because they would remain excluded from the tether requirements of 
Standard No. 225 (see S5(a)). We will require the LATCH system in such 
vehicles beginning September 1, 2002. An earlier effective date would 
not provide adequate leadtime to meet the requirement.
    A vehicle with a rear seat that meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) 
of Standard No. 208 whose front seating position does not have any air 
bag (because of a temporary exemption) is analogous to a vehicle with a 
small rear seat whose front seating position is equipped with an air 
bag and an air bag on-off switch. In both vehicles, a LATCH system in a 
front passenger seating position is needed to fully realize the 
benefits associated with this improved method of securing child 
restraints. Thus, for both vehicles, we are requiring a LATCH system in 
a front passenger seating position in place of one of the LATCH systems 
required to be installed in 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 the standard.

VII. Reasons for the Effective Date of This Rule

    Section 30111(d) of the motor vehicle safety statute (Title 49 
U.S.C., Chapter 301) provides 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 30 days after publication. Today's rule generally does 
not impose new requirements on manufacturers but extends alternative 
strength requirements for an interim period. We are delaying the more 
stringent requirements to allow manufacturers more certainty in 
designing future vehicles. To the extent that this rule places new 
requirements on some manufacturers (e.g., manufacturers of vehicles 
that do not have air bags pursuant to a temporary exemption under Part 
555), this rule provides two years leadtime for the manufacturers to 
comply. This rule also clarifies some requirements and test procedures 
that were specified in the March 1999 final rule and that become 
mandatory beginning September 1, 2000. Because of these considerations, 
it is in the public interest for the effective date for today's rule to 
be less than 180 days after issuance of this rule.

VIII. 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 generally it does not change the manufacturers' 
responsibilities to install tether anchorages and LATCH systems on the 
compliance dates of the March 5, 1999 final rule. The rule instead 
extends the period during which manufacturers

[[Page 46640]]

may meet, at the manufacturer's option, alterative strength 
requirements. This rule also clarifies some requirements and test 
procedures, but overall does not impose new test burdens. Because 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 them. 
Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This rule 
will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, NHTSA 
has determined that this final rule does not contain provisions that 
have federalism implications or that preempt State law.

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.

    In developing Standard No. 225, we searched for standards developed 
or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies and found that the 
only standard for a child restraint anchorage system was the draft ISO 
standard.
    This final rule extends the period during which manufacturers may 
meet the specifications in the draft ISO standard. The International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a worldwide voluntary 
federation of ISO member bodies.

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 this 
summer.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's 
regulations at 5 CFR 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 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 continues to read as 
follows:

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


    2. Section 571.225 is amended by:
    a. Revising S4.5 introductory text;
    b. Adding S5(c)(1)(iii), S5(c)(2)(iii) and S5(e);
    c. Revising S6.2, S6.2.1, S6.2.2.1 introductory text, S6.3, S6.3.3, 
S6.3.4.1 introductory text, S6.3.4.3, S9, and S9.3(c);
    d. Adding S9.4.1.2,
    e. Revising S9.4.2 and S10(a);
    f. Revising S14.3 in its entirety;
    g. Revising S15 and S15.1.2.1(f);
    h. Removing and reserving S15.1.2.1(d) and S15.1.2.1(e);
    i. Revising S15.2.2, S15.3.3, and S15.4; and
    j. Adding Figure 20 after Figure 19.
    The revised and added text and figure read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    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, 2004 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, 2004. A 
tether anchorage conforming to the requirements of S6 must be 
installed--
* * * * *
    S5. General exceptions.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) * * *
    (iii) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, each 
vehicle

[[Page 46641]]

that does not have a rear designated seating position, and does not 
have an air bag installed at front passenger designated seating 
positions pursuant to a temporary exemption granted by NHTSA under 49 
CFR Part 555, must have a child restraint anchorage system installed at 
a front passenger designated seating position. 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.
* * * * *
    (c)(2) * * *
    (iii) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, each 
vehicle that has a rear designated seating position and meets the 
conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208 (Sec. 571.208), and does 
not have an air bag installed at front passenger designated seating 
positions pursuant to a temporary exemption granted by NHTSA under 49 
CFR Part 555, must have a child restraint anchorage system installed at 
a front passenger designated seating position in place of one of the 
child restraint anchorage systems 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.
* * * * *
    (e) A vehicle with a rear designated seating position for which 
interference with transmission and/or suspension components prevents 
the location of the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system 
anywhere within the zone described by S9.2 or S15.1.2.2(b) such that 
the attitude angles of S15.1.2.2(a) could be met, is excluded from the 
requirement to provide a child restraint anchorage system at that 
position. However, except as provided elsewhere in S5 of this standard, 
for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2001, such a vehicle 
must have a tether anchorage at a front passenger designated seating 
position.
* * * * *
    S6.2  Location of the tether anchorage. A vehicle manufactured on 
or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2004 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, 
2004 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 must 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. The zone is defined with 
reference to the seating reference point (see Sec. 571.3). (For 
purposes of the figures, ``H Point'' is defined to mean seating 
reference point.)
* * * * *
    S6.2.2.1  In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
manufactured before September 1, 2004, the portion of each user-ready 
tether anchorage to which a tether strap hook attaches may be located 
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:
* * * * *
    S6.3  Strength requirements for tether anchorages. Subject to 
S6.3.2, a vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, and 
before September 1, 2004 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, 2004 must meet 
the requirements of S6.3.1 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S6.3.3  Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing.
    (a) In the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than 
one tether anchorage system, the force referred to in S6.3.1 and S6.3.2 
may, at the agency's option, be applied simultaneously to each of those 
tether anchorages. However, that force may not be applied 
simultaneously to tether anchorages for any two adjacent seating 
positions whose midpoints are less than 400 mm apart, as measured in 
accordance with S6.3.3(a)(1) and (2) and Figure 20.
    (1) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal 
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages 
at the seating position.
    (2) Measure the distance between the vertical longitudinal planes 
passing through the midpoints of the adjacent seating positions, as 
measured along a line perpendicular to the planes.
    (b) A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage 
system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage 
system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously 
tested under this standard.
* * * * *
    S6.3.4.1  In a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 2004, 
every user-ready tether anchorage in a row of designated seating 
positions must, when tested, subject to subsection S6.3.4.2, withstand 
the application of a force of 5,300 N, which force must be--
* * * * *
    S6.3.4.3  Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing.
    (a) In the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than 
one tether anchorage system, the force referred to in S6.3.4, 6.3.4.1 
or S6.3.4.2 may, at the agency's option, be applied simultaneously to 
each of those tether anchorages. However, that force may not be applied 
simultaneously to tether anchorages for any two adjacent seating 
positions whose midpoints are less than 400 mm apart, as measured in 
accordance with S6.3.4.3(a)(1) and (2) and Figure 20.
    (1) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal 
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages 
at the seating position.
    (2) Measure the distance between the vertical longitudinal planes 
passing through the midpoints of the adjacent seating positions, as 
measured along a line perpendicular to the planes.
    (b) A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage 
system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage 
system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously 
tested under this standard.
* * * * *
    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 on or after September 1, 1999 and before 
September 1, 2004 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, 2004 must meet the requirements 
of S9 of this standard.
* * * * *
    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. If necessary, 
the height of the CRF may be 560 mm.
* * * * *

[[Page 46642]]

    S9.4.1.2  The amount of displacement is measured relative to an 
undisturbed point on the vehicle body.
* * * * *
    S9.4.2  Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing.
    (a) In the case of vehicle seat assemblies equipped with more than 
one child restraint anchorage system, the lower anchorages may, at the 
agency's option, be tested simultaneously. However, forces may not be 
applied simultaneously for any two adjacent seating positions whose 
midpoints are less than 400 mm apart, as measured in accordance with 
S9.4.2(a)(1) and (2) and Figure 20.
    (1) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal 
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages 
at the seating position.
    (2) Measure the distance between the vertical longitudinal planes 
passing through the midpoints of the adjacent seating positions, as 
measured along a line perpendicular to the planes.
    (b) The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage 
system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been 
previously tested under this standard.
* * * * *
    S10. Test conditions for testing the lower anchorages. * * *
    (a) Adjust vehicle seats to their full rearward and full downward 
position and place the seat backs in their 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 closest to the upright position that enables SFAD 2 to 
attach to the lower anchorages.
* * * * *
    S14. Lower anchorage phase-in requirements for vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 
2002.
* * * * *
    S14.3  Alternative phase-in schedules.
    (a) Final-stage manufacturers and alterers. A final-stage 
manufacturer or alterer may, at its option, comply with the 
requirements set forth in S14.3(a)(1) and (2) instead of the 
requirements set forth in S14.1.1 through S14.1.2.
    (1) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before 
September 1, 2002 are not required to comply with the requirements 
specified in this standard.
    (2) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 must comply 
with the requirements specified in this standard.
    (b) Small volume manufacturers. Vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2002 that are manufactured by 
a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide 
annually are not required to provide the lower anchorages specified in 
this standard.
* * * * *
    S15 Alternative to complying with the requirements of S9. As an 
alternative to complying with the requirements of S9, a vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2004 
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, 2004 must meet the requirements of S9 of this 
standard.
* * * * *
    S15.1.2  Anchorage dimensions and location.
    S15.1.2.1  The lower anchorages must consist of two bars that--
* * * * *
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) Are permanently attached to the vehicle or vehicle seat such 
that they can only be removed by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver 
or wrench.
    S15.2.2  Horizontal excursion of point X during application of the 
8 kN and 5 kN forces must be not more than 125 mm, after preloading the 
device. The amount of displacement is measured relative to an 
undisturbed point on the vehicle body.
* * * * *
    S15.3.3  Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing.
    (a) 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 may, at the 
agency's option, be applied simultaneously to SFADs engaged with the 
anchorages. However, that force may not be applied simultaneously to 
SFADs engaged at any two adjacent seating positions whose midpoints are 
less than 400 mm apart, as measured in accordance with S15.3.3(a)(1) 
and (2) and Figure 20.
    (1) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal 
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages 
at the seating position.
    (2) Measure the distance between the vertical longitudinal planes 
passing through the midpoints of the adjacent seating positions, as 
measured along a line perpendicular to the planes.
    (b) The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage 
system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been 
previously tested under this standard.
* * * * *
    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 
the CRF. If guidance fixtures are used to meet this requirement, the 
fixture(s) (although removable) must be installed. Storable anchorages 
shall be provided with a tell-tale or label that is visible when the 
anchorage is stored.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 46643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31JY00.000


    Issued on: July 25, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-19123 Filed 7-25-00; 5:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C