[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38208-38231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15953]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 596

[Docket No. NHTSA-03-15438]
RIN 2127-AH99


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

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

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to the remaining outstanding 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 previous 
responses to petitions, published in August 1999 and July 2000. Key 
issues pertain to: The strength requirement for the tether anchorage 
and for the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage systems; how 
the test for the strength requirement is conducted; how the lower 
anchorage bars must be configured and marked; where the bars must be 
located relative to the vehicle seat bight; where tether anchorages 
must be located relative to seating positions within a vehicle; the 
installation of child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles with 
advanced air bags; and whether to require backless booster seats to be 
equipped with attachments for connecting to the lower anchors of a 
child restraint anchorage system.

DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective August 26, 2003. 
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition 
must be received by August 11, 2003.

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 SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Michael Huntley, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA (telephone 202-366-0029).
    For legal issues: Deirdre R. Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NHTSA (telephone 202-366-2992).
    You can reach both of these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety

[[Page 38209]]

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table Of Contents

I. Introduction
    a. Overview of this Final Rule
    b. Background
    1. March 1999 Final Rule
    2. August 1999 Response to Petitions
    3. July 2000 Response to Petitions
II. The Remaining Issues
    a. Installation of Anchorage Systems (S4)
    1. Number of Tether Anchorages and Where They Should Be Located
    i. Number of Anchorages
    ii. Location of Anchorages
    2. Where There is an Air Bag
    b. Configuration of the Lower Bars (S9.1)
    c. Location of the Lower Anchorages (S9.2)
    1. Rearward Force Application
    2. Pitch, Roll and Yaw
    d. Marking the Location of Lower Anchorage Bars (S9.5)
    1. Determining the Visibility of the Bars
    2. Identifying Both Bars
    3. Features of the Required Circle
    4. Covering Otherwise Visible Bars
    5. Guide Devices
    e. Location of Flexible Routing Devices
    f. Performance and Testing of Anchorage Systems
    1. Strength of Tether Anchorages (S6.3 and S8)
    i. Final Rule's Basis for the Strength Requirement
    ii. What Should the Requirement Be?
    A. Petitioners Believe It Should Be 8,000 N
    1. Comparison to Standard No. 210 Requirements
    2. Engineering Analysis
    3. Static v. Dynamic Performance of Materials
    B. NHTSA Decides on 15,000 N
    1. Proportioning Seat Belt Loads
    2. Engineering Analysis
    C. NHTSA Replaces Displacement Limit
    2. Strength of Lower Anchorages (S9.4 and S11)
    i. 11,000 N Requirement
    ii. Displacement Limit.
    iii. Ten-Second Hold Time
    3. Phasing-In Strength Requirements
    4. Superwebbing
    5. Technical Amendments
    i. SFAD 2
    ii. Tether Anchorage Zone
    g. Denial of Petition on Backless Booster Systems
III. 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. Viewing Docket Submissions

I. Introduction

a. Overview of This Final Rule

    This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration of a 
final rule (64 FR 10786; Docket No. 98-3390) that was published on 
March 5, 1999 and that established a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) for child restraint anchorage systems (FMVSS No. 225, 
49 CFR Sec.  571.225). This is the third and final document responding 
to the petitions. The first two responses to petitions for 
reconsideration were published August 31, 1999 (64 FR 47566; Docket No. 
99-6160), and July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46628; Docket No. 7648). A detailed 
summary of the petitions and the agency's responses thereto can be 
found in the ``overview'' section of the July 2000 final rule (65 FR at 
46629).
    This final rule resolves the issue of the appropriateness of the 
15,000 N strength requirement for tether anchorages (S6.3 and S8.1 of 
FMVSS No. 225) and the 11,000 N strength requirement for the lower 
anchorages (S9.4.1(a)). Those strength requirements are unchanged from 
the March 1999 final rule. However, this final rule provides vehicle 
manufacturers an additional year of lead-time for the few vehicle 
models that might have to be redesigned to meet the requirements.
    In this document, we are replacing the displacement limit of 125 
millimeters (mm) of the 1999 final rule with different performance 
criteria for the performance of the tether anchorage, and slightly 
increasing the displacement limit for tests of the lower anchorages. In 
response to petitions for reconsideration of the length of time 
specified in the rule for the application of the required loads to the 
lower anchorages, we are reducing the time from 10 seconds to 1 second. 
We also address other issues concerning the installation and testing of 
anchorage systems, such as the configuration, location and marking of 
the lower bars, and the location of tether anchorages in sport utility 
vehicles (SUVs).
    Finally, we deny a petition for reconsideration from Cosco, Inc., 
to exclude backless child restraint systems from the requirement in 
Standard No. 213 that the restraint systems have components that attach 
to a vehicle's child restraint anchorage system.

b. Background

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 rule required 
vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with new child restraint 
anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle 
seat belts.
    Each 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 attached. The bars are 
located at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat back. 
The upper anchorage is a fixture to which the top tether strap of a 
child restraint system is to be hooked. (For convenience, this document 
refers to the child restraint anchorage system as the ``LATCH'' system. 
LATCH, an acronym for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children,'' was a 
term developed by manufacturers and retailers in educating the public 
on the availability and use of the new system.) Standard No. 225 
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 
were 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of manufacturers submitted petitions for reconsideration 
of various aspects of the new standard, including the strength 
requirements for the anchorage system and the test procedures to be 
used by NHTSA to test for compliance with the requirements.\2\ Some of 
the vehicle manufacturers believed that there was no safety need for 
requirements as stringent as those

[[Page 38210]]

specified in the rule (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 lower LATCH anchorages (S9.4.1(a)). They indicated that 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), 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We received petitions from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (``Alliance'') (whose members were BMW, 
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Nissan, Toyota, 
Volkswagen, Volvo, Fiat and Isuzu), and from individual petitioners 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. August 1999 Response To Petitions
    In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about the 
lead-time 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. 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 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 the 
Alliance, Ford, Volkswagen, and Keiper GmbH & Co. (Keiper) to petition 
the agency to reconsider the decisions based on new information.
3. July 2000 Response to Petitions
    On July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46628, docket 7648), NHTSA published a 
final rule that extended, until August 31, 2004, the period during 
which vehicle manufacturers may meet the Canadian and draft ISO 
requirements. The final rule also addressed other issues concerning the 
installation of child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles and how 
those systems are tested in the agency's compliance tests. Those issues 
involved the configuration requirements for the bars set forth in the 
ISO provisions of S15 of Standard No. 225; how the agency determines 
the H-point of a seating position when evaluating whether a tether 
anchorage is properly located in a seating position; what the 
dimensions of the child restraint fixture (``CRF'') should be; and 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 excepted from the requirement of FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant 
Crash Protection,'' to provide an air bag at the front passenger 
seating position.

II. The Remaining Issues

    The remainder of this document addresses the remaining issues that 
were raised in petitions for reconsideration of the aforementioned 
final rules.

a. Installation of Anchorage Systems (S4)

1. Number of Tether Anchorages and Where They Should Be Located
    i. Number of Tether Anchorages. The March 1999 final rule required 
that vehicles with three or more rear designated seating positions must 
have tether anchorages at not less than three positions in these 
vehicles. This requirement applied to passenger cars, as well as to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (``MPVs'').\3\ NHTSA required the third 
tether anchorage to improve the means of attaching child restraints at 
a center rear seating position. 64 FR at 10803. Because Standard No. 
225 requires that the lower anchorages of a LATCH system be 280 mm 
apart, most vehicles do not have a rear seat that is wide enough to 
accommodate anchorages in the center seating position and in an 
adjacent outboard position. Accordingly, manufacturers will probably 
install LATCH systems in the two outboard seating positions, and not in 
a center and an outboard position. However, many parents prefer placing 
child restraints in a center rear seating position, believing, 
correctly, that such a position is generally safer for a child, 
particularly with respect to the risk of injury if the child were in an 
outboard position on the side that was struck in a side impact.\4\ A 
child restraint installed properly in a center seating position and 
using the vehicle's belt system and a top tether will perform 
comparably to a child restraint installed using the three-point LATCH 
system. The tether anchorage in both systems provides safety benefits 
to the child. Thus, the requirement for the third tether anchorage 
improves the position that many parents will want to use for their 
child (the center seating position).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AMultipurpose passenger vehicle'' is defined in 49 CFR Sec.  
571.3 as Aa 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.''
    \4\ It is probably easier for most parents to install two child 
restraints on a vehicle seat bench if the two LATCH systems were on 
the outboard positions than if they were side-by-side (in the center 
position and on an adjacent outboard position).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some manufacturers objected to the requirement for a third tether 
anchorage in MPVs with five or fewer designated seating positions. (For 
convenience,

[[Page 38211]]

since most MPVs with five or fewer seating positions are sport utility 
vehicles (SUVs), we will refer to these MPVs as ``SUVs''.) In its 
petition for reconsideration of NHTSA's requirement for three 
anchorages, the Alliance stated that Transport Canada has required only 
two tether anchorages for SUVs, because of manufacturers' submissions 
to Transport Canada ``which stated that the seating configurations and 
vehicle design constraints made the mandate of three tether anchors in 
the rear seat impracticable for such vehicles.'' The Alliance also 
stated that some manufacturers state in their owner's manual not to 
install child restraints in the center position because those seating 
positions tend to be smaller in area. Thus, the Alliance asked that we 
amend our standard to require only two tether anchorages for SUVs with 
5 or fewer seating positions.
    NHTSA denied this request in the agency's August 1999 response to 
petitions for reconsideration (64 FR at 47570). The agency noted that 
manufacturers had not submitted any information to NHTSA that justified 
why SUVs, as a vehicle class, should have fewer tether anchorages than 
passenger cars or why a third tether anchor in the rear seat of these 
vehicles was impracticable. Further, the agency noted that SUVs were 
used as passenger-carrying vehicles, were increasing in popularity, and 
were used to carry children. Based on this information, NHTSA denied 
the request of the petitioners and retained the requirement for three 
tether anchorages. However, to provide manufacturers with lead-time to 
design and manufacture SUVs with three anchorages, the agency permitted 
manufacturers the option of installing only two tether anchorages 
during the interim period during which they could meet Transport 
Canada's requirements for tether anchorages. The interim period ends 
August 31, 2004.
    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of this denial (NHTSA 
99-6160-6). It stated that some SUV vehicle owner's manuals state that 
the center seat is not recommended for child restraint installation 
because the seat does not meet the provisions of the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1819, ``Securing Child 
Restraint Systems in Motor Vehicle Rear Seats,'' due to a small center 
seating area. The petitioner stated that installing the third tether 
anchorage, and providing step-by-step instructions in the owner's 
manual for using the tether anchorage as required by a related 
provision of Standard No. 225, would be in direct conflict with the 
recommendation not to install a child restraint in that seating 
position. It said that ``(c)ustomer confusion and dissatisfaction will 
result.''
    NHTSA has decided not to change its requirement that three tether 
anchorages must be installed in all passenger vehicles with three or 
more rear designated seating positions (including SUVs). Currently, 
SUVs comprise about half of the new vehicles purchased each year and 
have increased in popularity as family vehicles. While some child 
restraints might not be able to fit in the small center seating 
position on some of the smaller SUVs, some other child restraints might 
be able to fit the position, especially if a parent is intent on making 
it fit. Many parents are likely to try very hard to install child 
restraints in the center rear seating position, as the center seat is 
generally safer than the outboard positions in nearside side impacts. 
Tethering a child restraint in those narrow center seating positions 
will better secure it in a crash. Also, the center rear seating 
position on larger SUV's with 5 designated seating positions could 
readily fit a child restraint. Thus, this document retains the 
requirement for three tether anchorages.
    ii. Location of Tether Anchorages. The March 1999 final rule also 
specified that, in each vehicle with a rear designated seating position 
other than an outboard designed seating position, at least one tether 
anchorage must be at such a designated seating position. The Alliance 
petitioned for reconsideration of that requirement as it applied to 
MPVs with six or more designated seating positions. The petitioner 
stated that the requirement was not practical for some of these MPVs 
because ``a child restraint installed in the center position will block 
ingress/egress for the third row outboard seating position in certain 
vehicles.'' In its August 1999 response NHTSA denied the request, 
explaining its reasons, set forth in the preceding section, for 
requiring a tether in a center seating position. The agency also noted 
that, ``As for practical problems with blocking ingress/egress for the 
third row, we believe the tether can be located to avoid such blockage. 
For example, the tether anchor could be attached to the ceiling or to 
the back of the lower part of the seat structure.'' 64 FR at 47570, 
footnote 9.
    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of this denial (Docket 
99-6160-6). The petitioner explained that it was referring to two types 
of vehicles. For both vehicles, the petitioner believed that the center 
seating position was not likely to be the position where a child 
restraint would be fastened and that the center position on these 
vehicles should therefore be excluded from having a tether anchorage.
    First were large SUVs that had three or more rows of seats, such as 
the seven- and eight-passenger versions of DaimerChrysler's Dodge 
Durango. These vehicles feature a 3-passenger second row (split 40/20/
40 percent) and a 2-passenger third row. The second row seats occupy 
the full width of the vehicle. No aisle is provided for access to the 
rear seats, which is obtained by folding the seatback of the outboard 
40% seat and ``tumbling'' the folded seat forward and out of the way. 
The petitioner explains that the only center seating position is the 
20% portion of the second row. It believes that this seating position 
is not suited to a child restraint, because a restraint in the position 
overlaps the two inboard edges of the outboard seats, preventing them 
from folding to allow access to the rear seating positions. A child 
restraint in that position would also block the belt buckles in the 
outboard seating positions, so passengers seated outboard would not be 
able to buckle their seat belts. The second type of vehicle was a 
vehicle in which there is a middle seating position whose seatback is 
divided into two or more sections that may be folded independently of 
each other. The division between two sections lies substantially along 
the seating reference plane of the middle seating position.
    NHTSA has decided to deny this request. The March 1999 final rule 
required a tether anchorage at a center seating position on vehicles 
that have a center rear seating position to address the concerns of 
commenters to the NPRM that such a seating position should have an 
improved means of attaching a child restraint. (As noted above, the 
rule does not require that a LATCH system be installed in a center 
position, because some vehicle rear seats might not be wide enough to 
accommodate two LATCH systems side-by-side.) NHTSA continues to believe 
that many parents will want to place their child in a center seating 
position, and will do so on a vehicle such as the Durango, particularly 
if the family is transporting just one child. A child is generally 
safer in the center seat than in an outboard position closest to a side 
impact. Equipping the center position with a tether anchorage provides 
these parents the option of using the center position and ensures that 
if the position were used, the benefits of a tether would be available 
to the restrained child. Without a tether anchorage at that

[[Page 38212]]

position, optimal protection to the child could not be realized.
    The petitioner's request is also denied with respect to vehicles of 
the second type described above, with a center seating position that 
has a seat back that folds along the vertical longitudinal centerline 
of the seating position. The zone in which the tether anchorage may be 
located within the vehicle is sufficiently large to give vehicle 
manufacturers flexibility in designing and locating anchorages that are 
practical. Current MPVs incorporate designs that locate tether 
anchorages in a variety of places, such as on the floor or the ceiling, 
which would avoid the petitioner's concerns about a tether strap 
sliding between a split seat back in the third row of seats.
    In its petition for reconsideration, the Alliance asked for 
clarification that providing a user-ready tether anchorage at a seat 
that can be used at either an outboard or a non-outboard (i.e., center) 
seating position meets the subject requirement. The petitioner stated 
that some vehicles are now equipped with laterally adjustable vehicle 
seats that can be moved from an outboard position to a non-outboard 
position. The petitioner wanted to know how the agency would position 
such a movable seat in determining compliance with the requirement that 
a tether anchorage must be provided in a center seating position.
    In response, NHTSA is adding regulatory text (S4.6) to specify that 
if a vehicle has a laterally adjustable seat capable of being used in a 
rear center position, but does not otherwise have a seat that could be 
regarded as a rear center seat, that adjustable seat will be considered 
by the agency to be a rear center seat and must be equipped with a 
tether anchorage usable when the seat is in the center position. The 
agency will put the adjustable seat in the center position because we 
believe many consumers will use it there when using a child restraint. 
On a related point, NHTSA is not prohibiting manufacturers from having 
removable seats, even where the removable seat is equipped with a 
required LATCH or tether anchor system. For example, manufacturers will 
be able to design minivans and SUVs such that the last row can be 
readily removable (and readily replaceable) by the consumer, even if 
the seat contained one of the required LATCH systems and the vehicle, 
without the seat, no longer had two full LATCH systems. The agency does 
not see a safety need to restrict the ability of the consumer to remove 
the seats. If the vehicle seat is readily replaceable, the consumer 
will have available the LATCH system when the anchorage system is 
needed. The agency has added language to S4.6 of the standard to make 
this clarification.
2. Where There Is An Air Bag
    The March 1999 final rule contained requirements that implemented 
the agency's policies about where children should be restrained in 
vehicles. If the vehicle has a rear designated seating position, a 
LATCH system should be placed there. This is because children are safer 
seated in a rear seat than in the front seat, regardless of whether 
there is an air bag for the front passenger seating position. If there 
is no rear seat, the question of whether a LATCH system should be 
installed at the front passenger designated seating position is 
answered by whether that position is equipped with an air bag that 
cannot be turned off with a manual on-off switch. If an air bag is 
present that cannot be turned off, that seating position is unsuitable 
for a LATCH system. Some consumers may believe that the presence of a 
LATCH system signals that the designated seating position is an 
appropriate one in which a child restraint may be installed, which is 
incorrect. For that reason, the standard prohibits manufacturers from 
equipping the front passenger seating position with a LATCH system when 
an air bag on-off switch is not present. (A tether anchorage is 
required for the seating position, however. A tether anchorage can be 
less conspicuous than a LATCH system and does not encourage users to 
install child restraints at the seating position in the way that a 
LATCH system would. A tether anchorage is required at the position so 
that, if a forward-facing child restraint were installed there, the 
restraint could be tethered tightly against the seat and as far as 
possible from the air bag.)
    Ford petitioned the agency to rescind the prohibition against 
installing a LATCH system in a front seating position equipped with an 
air bag that lacks a manual on-off switch. The petitioner believed that 
vehicle manufacturers should have the flexibility to install lower 
anchors in front seats voluntarily. GM petitioned NHTSA to allow 
voluntary installation of a LATCH system ``in any passenger seating 
position even when an air bag on/off switch or automatic suppression is 
not present. We believe that adequate warnings are given to consumers 
to ensure a rear facing child seat will not be placed in front of an 
air bag.''
    These petitions are denied. They are denied to the extent that they 
seek to allow manufacturers to install LATCH systems anywhere in the 
vehicle. NHTSA continues to believe that consumers would erroneously 
infer from the presence of a LATCH system in a front passenger seating 
position that the position can and should be used with a child 
restraint. An air bag that is not turned off could inflict serious or 
fatal injuries to a child in a rear-facing child restraint in the front 
passenger seating position. In addition, children are safer in rear 
seating positions. (Our analysis shows that rear seats are 26 percent 
safer against fatality for all children age 4 and under.) Thus, they 
should be restrained in rear seats. For these reasons, the standard 
will continue to require LATCH systems to be installed at rear seating 
positions, if such positions exist on the vehicle, and to disallow 
LATCH systems in front seating positions unless the vehicle is equipped 
with an air bag on-off switch.
    The petitions are also denied concerning the installation of LATCH 
systems in a vehicle whose front passenger seating position has an air 
bag system certified to new requirements in Standard No. 208 (i.e., one 
that suppresses the air bag when it senses the presence of the infant, 
3-year-old or 6-year-old child dummy) and that lacks a rear seat. Such 
a vehicle is different from a vehicle with no rear seat whose front 
passenger seating position is equipped with an air bag and an air bag 
on-off switch. With the front passenger air bag disabled by an air bag 
on-off switch, there is not any risk of injury to children from the air 
bag. It is too early to know if this is the case for vehicles with no 
rear designated seating positions and an advanced air bag certified to 
the new Standard No. 208 requirements. The agency does not believe that 
there is sufficient experience with air bag deactivation technology at 
this time. In fact, the allowance of on-off switches until 2012 was to 
allow manufacturers time to perfect the suppression and low risk 
deployment systems in all their vehicles, and provide additional time 
to assure that the advanced systems work properly (65 FR 30722). Thus, 
we have concluded that vehicles with no rear designated seating 
positions and an advanced air bag certified to new Standard No. 208 
will not be allowed to have a LATCH system installed at a front 
passenger seating position unless the vehicle is equipped with an air 
bag on-off switch. We will revisit this matter in several years after 
an assessment of the technology and its performance.
    For the same reasons, the petitions are denied to the extent 
concerning the installation of LATCH systems in a vehicle whose front 
passenger seating position has an advanced air bag system

[[Page 38213]]

and that has a small rear seat (i.e., a rear seat meeting the 
conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208).

b. Configuration of the Lower Bars

    The July 31, 2000 response to petitions for reconsideration deleted 
certain requirements that were specified in S15 of Standard No. 225. 
(S15 sets forth the temporary compliance option available to 
manufacturers to meet draft ISO requirements for the lower anchorages.) 
S9.1 of the standard contains provisions that are identical to the ones 
that had been deleted from S15. Today's final rule amends S9.1 to 
reflect the changes that had been made to S15 and makes minor changes 
to improve the clarity of the requirements. These amendments respond to 
petitions for reconsideration submitted by the Alliance, Porsche, 
Honda, and VW.
    S9.1.1(b) specifies that the lower anchorages of the LATCH system 
must consist of two bars that ``whose centroidal longitudinal axes are 
collinear.'' S9.1.1(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 so that they are 280 
mm apart, measured from the center of the length of one bar to the 
center of the length of the other bar. These requirements are deleted 
as unnecessary. 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 
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 
S9.3, the vehicle must allow attachment of the CRF to the lower bars. 
Thus, the CRF's successful attachment to the anchorages would 
independently confirm that the anchorages are long enough to attach a 
child restraint system and spaced an appropriate distance apart.
    S9.1.1(c) specifies that the lower anchorages must be not less than 
25 mm, but not more than 40 mm in length. The limits were adopted in 
part to standardize the design of the lower bars. The 40 mm maximum 
length specification was also adopted to reduce the likelihood that the 
bars may bend in a crash. The Alliance and Porsche petitioned the 
agency to delete the 40 mm maximum length limit as unnecessary. 
Petitioners believed that as long as the anchorages meet the strength 
test requirements of the standard and can accommodate the CRF, the 
limit is not needed. Alternatively, the Alliance suggested that only 
one of the two LATCH bars in an outboard seating position need be 
limited, and that limit should be 50 mm.
    NHTSA has decided not to delete the maximum length specification. 
We believe that limiting the length of the anchorage bars will 
contribute towards better performance of a child restraint in a side 
impact. NHTSA conducted side impact sled tests in response to the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act 
(the TREAD Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800). 
See Docket No. 02-12151. These simulations showed that limiting lateral 
movement and/or rotation of a child restraint in a side impact is 
important to reducing occupant head excursion in the crash and the 
likelihood of head impact against the vehicle side structure. We 
believe that limiting the length of the bars will limit the chances 
that the bar will bend in a crash, and will limit the ability of a 
child restraint to move laterally and/or rotate in a side impact. The 
effect cannot be quantified at this time. Moreover, limiting the length 
of the bars also increases the uniformity of appearance to consumers. 
However, to provide more design and manufacturing flexibility to 
manufacturers, this rule increases the maximum bar length from 40 mm to 
50 mm.
    Bornemann Products Incorporated asked whether the ``not less than 
25 mm but not more than 40 mm'' language in S9.1.1(c) refers to the 
inside opening of the anchorages (bars), or to the overall length of 
the bar including the 6 mm steel material. The answer is the inside 
opening of the bar, and not the overall length of it. We are adding a 
figure to the standard to clarify the meaning of S9.1.1(c).
    S9.1.1(f) requires that the lower bars must be ``an integral and 
permanent part of the vehicle or vehicle seat.'' The Alliance stated 
that the strength requirements of the standard obviate the need for 
this requirement. The petitioner also inquired whether threaded 
fasteners are permissible. Honda asked whether fastening anchorages to 
the vehicle with bolts would be acceptable.
    Our answers are that we agree with the Alliance that the strength 
requirements of the standard obviate the need to specify that the 
anchorages are ``integral and permanent.'' Thus, the words are deleted 
from the regulatory text. In response to Honda, anchorages that are 
bolted into the vehicle are acceptable, provided that they cannot be 
removed without the use of a tool, e.g., a screwdriver or wrench. 
Specifying that the bars are 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.
    The agency emphasizes that it does not believe that the anchorage 
system should be designed with the intent of having consumers remove 
and/or replace the anchorages. The anchorages should be permanent 
features of the vehicle, similar to seat belts. Anchorages that can be 
removed have many potential problems associated with them. They might 
not be present when needed; when reinstalled they might not be 
correctly located and aligned in the vehicle or be strong enough to 
properly secure the child restraint to the vehicle. There should be no 
instruction in owners' manuals instructing owners how to remove the 
anchorage system from a vehicle.

c. Location of the Lower Anchorages (S9.2)

1. Rearward Force Application
    Stated generally, S9.2 requires that each LATCH lower anchorage bar 
be located so that it is (a) not more than 70 mm behind a point Z of 
the CRF while the CRF is pressed against the seat back by the rearward 
application of a horizontal force of 5 Newtons (N); and (b) not less 
than 120 mm behind the vehicle seating reference point. General Motors 
petitioned to increase the maximum allowable distance (70 mm) behind 
the CRF to allow a more rearward location of the rigid lower 
anchorages. Alternatively, GM suggested that NHTSA should delete the 5 
N rearward force specification, or increase it to allow the CRF to be 
pressed harder against the seat back. The Alliance stated in a June 2, 
2000 letter that the value should be deleted, or increased to 150 N.
    We have decided not to delete the rearward force specification. The 
purpose of the specification was to make the procedure for locating the 
LATCH lower anchorages as objective as possible. A force specification 
needs to be established so that testers know how hard they should press 
rearward on the CRF to position the device on the vehicle seat. 
Positioning the CRF consistently is important because the LATCH lower 
anchorages must be within 70 mm of point Z on the CRF. The harder the 
CRF is pressed against the seat back, the further rearward point Z will 
be. Specifying how hard to press the CRF against the seat back will

[[Page 38214]]

ensure that the CRF is positioned correctly time after time.
    However, we have decided to increase the rearward force 
specification to 100 N. The 5 N force level was specified in the March 
1999 final rule to provide an objective means of positioning the CRF. 
On reconsideration, while a force specification is needed for 
objectivity, increasing the force level will result in a larger area 
provided to vehicle manufacturers for installing the LATCH lower 
anchorages, which facilitates the installation of the anchorages. We 
estimate that a 5th percentile adult female would be able to exert a 
100 N force pushing back on a child restraint without problem. 
Accordingly, the change has been made to S9.2 of the standard.
2. Pitch, Roll and Yaw
    The draft ISO specifications for LATCH lower anchorages specify 
that, with the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat 
cushion, the bottom surface of the CRF must 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]. Porsche petitioned NHTSA to incorporate these pitch, roll and 
yaw requirements into the requirements of Standard No. 225. NHTSA 
agrees that the requirements are necessary to more objectively specify 
how the CRF is installed in the vehicle. Today's final rule 
incorporates the pitch, roll and yaw requirements into S9 of the 
standard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The specifications were incorporated into S15 (the ISO-based 
requirements of the standard that manufacturers may meet for a 
certain time period) of the standard by the July 2000 response to 
petitions for reconsideration. 65 FR at 46636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Marking the Location of Lower Anchorage Bars

    The March 1999 final rule specified marking requirements for lower 
LATCH anchorage bars that applied to bars that could not be viewed from 
an angle of 30 degrees above a horizontal plane tangent to the seat 
cushion (S9.5). (The location of bars that were visible from that angle 
did not have to be marked.) Vehicles in which the bars are not visible 
from that angle must have a permanent mark on the vehicle seat back at 
each bar's location. The rule specified (S9.5(a)) that the permanent 
mark must be a circle that is not less than 13 mm (\1/2\ inch) in 
diameter, is in a color that contrasts with the seat material, and is 
located above each individual bar such that the center of the circle is 
not less than 50 mm and not more than 75 mm above the bar and is in the 
vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of the bar. 
The purposes of marking the location of the bars were to provide a 
visual reminder to consumers that the LATCH system is present and to 
help users locate and use the bars. 64 FR at 10802.
1. Determining the Visibility of the Bars
    Section S9.5(b) specifies that the vehicle seat back need not be 
marked to identify the presence and location of the lower LATCH 
anchorage bars if each anchorage bar is visible when viewed in a 
vertical longitudinal plane passing through the center of the bar, 
along a line making an upward 30 degree angle with a horizontal plane. 
Porsche suggested that the anchorages should be visible at angles of 30 
degrees or less. The agency is declining to make this change, as the 
anchorages would be less visible at smaller angles.
    Honda suggested that NHTSA specify that the seat back be positioned 
in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when determining 
whether the anchorage bars are visible. The petitioner explained that 
the seat backs on some of its vehicles tilt far forward to allow for 
increased luggage capacity when the seat is unoccupied. The petitioners 
stated that when the seat back is adjusted in that manner, a child 
restraint system cannot be installed in the seating position, so 
visibility of the LATCH bars is not critical. NHTSA agrees and has made 
this change.
2. Identifying Both Bars
    The Alliance and Porsche believed that only one lower anchorage bar 
need be required to be visible or marked, not both bars. The agency has 
decided against adopting this suggestion. Both bars must be identified 
to the consumer because, for the foreseeable future, child restraints 
sold in this country will typically have components that attach to the 
bars independently of each other. Consumers will need to know where to 
attach each of the two components. Knowing where one bar is located 
will not necessarily enable consumers to determine precisely the 
location of the other bar.
3. Features of the Required Circle
    Solid Or Open Circle. Mitsubishi and Porsche believed that the 
standard should allow manufacturers flexibility in selecting the shape 
of the mark, rather than specify a circle. The Alliance believed that 
manufacturers should be permitted to have a solid or open circle with 
the option of including a pictogram or wording in the circle. NHTSA has 
decided that a circle must be used, to standardize on the symbol used 
to identify the anchorages. Standardization will likely increase user 
recognition of the symbol. NHTSA has also decided to permit the option 
of using an open circle (uncolored area in the circle). The circle may 
include text or an easily recognizable symbol or pictogram. The symbol 
or pictogram must be clearly explained to the consumer in writing, such 
as in the vehicle owner's manual.
    Contrasting Color. Porsche believed that requiring the circle to be 
in a contrasting color would be optically disturbing and displeasing to 
consumers. The Alliance stated that ``a contrasting color requires a 
sewn on label or a painted application and these may be less durable 
than an embossed or woven marking which would show the marking in the 
color of the seat fabric but which would still be conspicuous.'' The 
agency has decided that the color of the circle need not contrast with 
the color of its background in order to be noticed. Thus, we have 
removed the requirement. However, if we find that the circles need to 
be more conspicuous in future vehicles, we will consider re-
establishing a contrasting color requirement in the standard.

    Permanency. The Alliance requested that manufacturers be 
permitted to--utilize the attachment means they deem best. The 
option for sewn on tags either onto the material or into a seam, 
adhesive applications, painted markings, and markings woven or 
embossed into the fabric should be permitted. Any of these options 
could be made permanent, that is, an owner would have to destroy or 
deface the marking to remove it.

    The rule did not specify the manner in which the permanency of the 
mark must be achieved. However, the agency makes the following 
observations and conclusions on this matter. The ``destroy or deface'' 
test is suitable for situations in which a consumer is not inclined 
intentionally to remove a mark or label. However, the agency does not 
agree that a destroy-or-deface test is a good one for determining 
permanency with regard to the circles in question. Some consumers may 
not see value in having the marks on the vehicle seats. If only one 
side of a tag were sewn into a seam, the owner could snip it off and it 
would meet the ``destroy or deface'' test. Such a tag is not permitted, 
since it is foreseeable that an owner would remove it. A tag that is 
sewn on at least half of its border, so as to not invite snipping, 
would be acceptable to NHTSA. Some painted markings and adhesive 
applications might not be sufficient, even if they could meet a 
destroy-or-deface test. For instance, paint that easily flaked off 
would defeat

[[Page 38215]]

the purpose of the requirement. In contrast, the agency anticipates 
that weaved, embossed, stamped, and engraved marks would be permanent.
    Vertical Position Of The Circle. Mitsubishi believed that consumers 
would be better assisted in locating the anchorage bar if the 50 mm 
lower limit for location of the anchorage bar mark were eliminated. The 
Alliance believed that the vertical position of the marking should be 
less restrictive than what the rule required. ``It should be visible at 
a 30 degree viewing angle and be located no more than 100 mm from the 
horizontal centerline of the anchorage bar in the vertical longitudinal 
plane.'' Mitsubishi and the Alliance asked where the ``seat back'' 
begins for the purpose of marking the lower anchorages on highly 
contoured seats. Mitsubishi stated that the bottom cushion of some of 
its seats curves toward the vertical and supports a portion of an 
occupant's lower back before a separate seat back begins. Petitioner 
stated that if the agency considers a portion of a vehicle seat to be 
the seat back solely by reference to a physical separation between the 
bottom seat cushion and the seat back, the circle markings would be 
more than 75 mm above the anchorage bars, which is not permitted by 
S9.5(a)(3).
    The agency is not eliminating the 50 mm lower limit for the 
location of the bars because without it, the mark might be too low to 
be seen. The agency is not increasing the 75 mm upper limit to 100 mm 
because it might be difficult for some consumers to align the child 
restraint attachments with the circles when the circles are 100 mm from 
the bars. The 75 mm limit also harmonizes with Transport Canada's 
requirements for the location of the markings, as further discussed 
below.
    To make it easier to find where the circles should be placed, the 
agency is amending S9.5(a) to use reference planes developed by 
Transport Canada in Regulation 210.2, ``Lower Universal Anchorage 
Systems for Restraint Systems and Booster Cushions `` (Standard 210.2). 
That standard requires the markings to be on the seat back between 50 
and 75 mm above or on the seat cushion 100 +/- 25 mm forward of the 
intersection of the vertical transverse and horizontal longitudinal 
planes intersecting at the horizontal centerline of each lower 
anchorage. This approach is not only clearer in where the circles 
should be, but also permits the markings to be located either on the 
seat back or the seat cushion, which allows flexibility to 
manufacturers such as Mitsubishi with atypical seat designs. The area 
100 +/- 25 mm forward of the intersection of the planes is specified to 
account for the lower anchorage bars being recessed in the padding of 
the seat back or recessed in the seat bight. This final rule 
incorporates a figure (Figure 22) into the standard that illustrates 
the intersection of the vertical transverse and horizontal longitudinal 
planes.
    Lateral Position Of The Circle. The Alliance stated that a 
tolerance needs to be provided for centering the circle over the 
anchorage bar to account for production variation and seat cover 
configuration. Petitioner suggested that the centerline of the marking 
should be located +/- 25 mm from the vertical centerline of the 
anchorage bar. We agree to provide a tolerance for centering the circle 
over the bar. However, the 25 mm tolerance that petitioner suggested is 
too large. If an anchorage is the minimum length (25 mm) and the 
centerline of the circle is 25 mm from the centerline of the bar, the 
centerline of the circle would not be over the bar. The tolerance is +/
- 12 mm from the vertical centerline of the bar. A tolerance of +/- 12 
mm ensures that, even with the shortest bars (those only 25 mm long), 
the centerline of the circle is over a part of the anchorage bar to 
which a child restraint would connect.
4. Covering Otherwise Visible Bars
    Several petitioners asked about anchorage bar covers. Porsche asked 
whether easily removable caps or covers for otherwise visible LATCH 
lower anchorages may be provided. Honda stated that it is considering 
using a guide to make it easier to attach a child restraint. ``With 
this guide, we would like to use a cover to prevent contaminating the 
anchorage by foreign substances falling or being inserted into the 
guide.'' Honda suggested adding a provision to S9.5 that would specify 
that, if the vehicle has a guide and cover for a bar: (1) the vehicle 
shall comply with S9.5(b) when the cover is removed; and (2) the cover 
shall be marked permanently with a circle according to S9.5(a) of the 
standard. Our answer to these petitioners is that caps and covers may 
be provided on these vehicles that meet S9.5(b), if the cap or cover is 
permanently marked. Marking the cap or cover alerts the consumer to the 
presence and location of the LATCH bars. The meaning of the words, 
symbols or pictograms must be explained to the consumer in the owner's 
manual. The standard has been amended to make these requirements clear.
5. Guide Devices
    Volkswagen (VW) asked about use of an anchorage locator such as a 
guide device installed onto the anchorage at the seat bight. VW 
suggested that a guide device ``would be clearly visible even if the 
bar itself is not visible,'' and that visible guidance devices should 
therefore meet S9.5's marking and conspicuity requirements. We have 
decided that the seat back need not be marked if the visible guide 
device is permanently attached to each anchorage bar and is not 
removable. The standard has been amended to allow this. If the device 
were removable, it could be lost or misplaced. Without the device, the 
bar will be hidden from the consumer, and as such, less likely to be 
used.

e. Location of Flexible Routing Devices

    Section S6.2.1.2(b)(1) of Standard No. 225 specifies that any 
flexible or deployable tether strap routing device must be not less 
than 65 mm behind the torso line for that seating position, measured 
horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane. This provision is 
intended to keep the routing device far enough back to remove slack 
from the tether strap, particularly a tether strap that is mounted high 
on the back of a child restraint.
    In its petition for reconsideration, Ford noted that S6.2.1.2 does 
not specify the conditions under which this dimension is to be 
measured. Ford believed that the provision is intended to measure the 
position of the routing device in actual use, while a tether strap is 
routed through it and tensioned.
    Ford suggested that a procedure be developed using the SFAD 2.\6\ 
Such a procedure would install the SFAD 2 on the anchor bars (with the 
length of the anchor attaching bars properly adjusted) and the front 
part of the SFAD 2 base touching the seat cushion. A 40 mm wide nylon 
tether strap would be routed through the tether routing device and 
hooked to the appropriate tether anchor, following the vehicle owner's 
manual instructions. The forwardmost contact point between the strap 
and the routing device should be 65 mm or more behind the torso line 
when the tether strap is clamped flat against the top surface of the 
SFAD with a tension of 55 to 65 N in the strap. For seating positions 
without lower anchorages, the SFAD 2 must be held with its central 
lateral plane in the central vertical longitudinal plane of the 
designated seating position. For this measurement, the adjustable 
anchor attaching bars of SFAD 2 would be replaced by spacers that end 
flush with the back surface of the SFAD base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If SFAD 1 were used for this test measurement, that fixture 
might contact the routing device and push it rearward of the 65 mm 
limit in some seats.

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

[[Page 38216]]

    NHTSA believes that the above procedure recommended by Ford is 
objective and will meet the intent of the requirement. This final rule 
adds language to S6.2.1.2 to reflect this.

f. Performance and Testing of Anchorage Systems

1. Strength of Tether Anchorages
    The NPRM proposed that the tether anchorage would be tested in a 
static pull test. A force of 5,300 Newtons (N) would be applied by a 
belt strap that attaches to the tether anchorage, and applied in the 
forward horizontal direction. The proposal was based on a Transport 
Canada requirement of 5,300 N which had been applied in Canada to non-
user-ready tether anchorages in passenger cars prior to 1999. The NPRM 
proposed that the 5,300 N force would be attained within 30 seconds, 
with an onset force rate not exceeding 135,000 N per second, and 
maintained at the 5,300 N level for one second. The NPRM proposed that 
each structural component of the anchorage must withstand the 5,300 N 
force, and that there must not be any complete separation or failure of 
any anchorage component.
    The final rule adopted a static pull test using a test fixture, 
instead of a belt strap, to apply the test forces to the tether 
anchorage. The fixture has a configuration representative of a child 
restraint system and applies the test forces in a more realistic manner 
than does a belt strap. The fixture is attached to the tether anchorage 
at the fixture's top, and to the vehicle seat at the fixture's bottom 
end (at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and back) using 
the vehicle's seat belt or the lower bars of a child restraint 
anchorage system. The test force is applied pulling on a strap that is 
attached to a point on the fixture. A force of 15,000 N is applied to 
the fixture, which in turn, applies the force to the three anchorage 
points (the tether anchorage and the seat belt anchorages or the lower 
bars). Since the fixture is attached to three anchorage points, only a 
portion of the 15,000 N force is actually applied to the tether 
anchorage. The 15,000 N force is attained within 30 seconds, at an 
onset force rate of not more than 135,000 N per second; and maintained 
at the 15,000 N level for one second. The final rule requires that (a) 
there must not be any point on the tether anchorage displaced more than 
125 millimeters (mm) (approximately 5 inches); and (b) there must not 
be complete separation of any anchorage component.
    The 15,000 N force level was selected because the agency believed 
it to be sufficiently high to ensure that the anchorage will withstand 
the loads generated by children in forward-facing restraints. This 
determination was based on test data from Transport Canada. (Transport 
Canada obtained these data after it had adopted a 10,000 N strength 
requirement for testing tether anchorages. As discussed later, 
Transport Canada subsequently raised its requirement to 15,000 N.) 
Canada conducted 48 km/h (30 mile-per-hour (mph)) dynamic tests of a 
prototype child restraint (weighing 32 lb) that had rigid LATCH 
attachments and a tether (``CANFIX''), and a 3-year-old (33 lb) dummy. 
It found dynamic loads of about 3,500 N and 4,000 N on the tether 
anchorage (loads on the lower attachments ranged from 3,000 N to 4,000 
N). Transport Canada then conducted a static pull test to determine the 
amount of force that would have to be applied to the CANFIX child 
restraint to produce a static load of 3,000 to 4,000 N on the lower 
anchorages. The pull force was 14,000 N (applied to three anchorage 
points by way of a fixture). NHTSA determined that a 15,000 N load 
requirement was needed to ensure that an anchorage system will not fail 
in a crash. In addition, the agency believed that simultaneously 
applying a 15,000 N load to the three LATCH anchorages was comparable 
to applying an approximate 5,000 N load to a single anchorage.
    The Alliance, Ford and other manufacturers opposed the strength 
requirements. Petitioners believed that the agency's rationale for the 
15,000 N requirement was invalid. The Alliance and Ford said that 
applying a 15,000 N load to the three LATCH anchorages by means of the 
SFAD fixture is not the same as applying a 5,300 N load to any single 
anchorage by a belt strap. Petitioners also believed that the Transport 
Canada test used an unrepresentative child restraint and sled pulse. 
Petitioners further suggested that an 8,000 N load application applied 
by an SFAD in the forward direction is sufficient for motor vehicle 
safety, regardless of whether lower anchors or top tether anchors are 
being tested. A child restraint manufacturer, E-Z-On, petitioned to 
increase the 15,000 N requirement, believing that it should be higher 
to account for the tethering of vests and harnesses that restrain 
children and young adults with special needs who may weigh up to 120 
pounds. All significant issues raised by each of these petitions are 
addressed below.

i. Final Rule's Basis for the Strength Requirement

    The petitioners believed that it was incorrect for the agency to 
believe that the test load applied to the test fixture at a point 
approximating the center of gravity of a child/CRS system is similar to 
testing each of the anchors separately. The Alliance stated that the 
conclusion ``ignores the fact that forces are vector quantities having 
both a magnitude and direction that cannot be summed in a direct 
arithmetic (scalar) fashion when they are not acting in the same 
direction.'' Ford stated in an April 19, 1999 petition for 
reconsideration that in many sedans in which the tether anchorage is 
mounted to the filler panel between the top of the rear seat and the 
rear window, it is common for 70 to 85 percent of the 10,000 N force on 
SFAD-1 (used to test tether anchorages at seating positions with seat 
belts) to be transferred into the top tether strap. Ford stated that at 
a 15,000 N SFAD force, the percent of the force on the top tether is 65 
to 80 percent in many sedans.
    Ford stated that when using SFAD-2, the total forces on the lower 
anchors are greater than the force applied to point X on the SFAD 
``because the fixture applies realistic vertical forces as well'' the 
amount of this reaction force will vary somewhat in different vehicle 
designs, but will typically be 6 to 7 kN. The resulting total force on 
both the lower anchors from the 8 kN force is about 10.5 kN. * * *'' 
Ford stated that ``11 kN force applied to point X resulted in a force 
of 9.3 kN on the outer anchor and 6.7 kN on the inner anchor, for a 
total anchor load of 16 kN on both lower anchor * * *.''
    The Alliance also believed that the 15,000 N requirement was based 
on a Transport Canada test which petitioners said--

did not accurately simulate vehicle seats or child restraints. It 
did not accurately simulate the loads paths that a child restraint 
and child would have on child restraint anchorages in an actual 
vehicle. Thus, the 15 kN force has only a tenuous relation to what 
would occur in a vehicle crash and should not be used as a basis for 
setting the static test force level in FMVSS 225.

    Ford stated that the test used a ``very heavy and rigid child 
restraint, a very rigid tether anchor, and a high strength/low 
elongation tether strap.''
    Response. The agency does not agree with the Alliance or with Ford 
that the strength requirement should be revised. Ford's finding that 
one anchorage can be subjected to more or less load than another is not 
surprising, since the SFAD is positioned on the vehicle seat

[[Page 38217]]

cushion and would naturally be affected by the influences of the 
cushion, seat structure and other features of the vehicle that can 
affect loading patterns. The distribution of the force applied to the 
device (and in a real life situation to a child restraint) can vary 
from vehicle to vehicle and between one child restraint and another. 
The distribution of force in a crash can also vary within a given 
vehicle, depending on the design of the seat position and the child 
restraint. The percentage distribution of the crash forces among the 
anchorages can also depend on how the child restraint is installed. The 
tightening of webbing (of either a vehicle belt system or LATCH 
attachments on a child restraint) could have a significant effect on 
the distribution of the applied load. In the event that a vehicle belt 
is loose, or the LATCH or tether webbing is improperly installed with 
slack, it is likely that highly unequal load transfers to the various 
anchorages could occur. Thus, the fact that the SFAD unevenly 
distributes the test load to the anchorages is a positive factor since 
it better reflects real world use and performance. The fact that the 
anchorages might be subjected to loads above or below 5,300 N is not 
material, as long as the total test load applied to the system is 
appropriate for the system. The safety need for and practicability of 
the requirement will be discussed in the next sections.
    Further, the agency does not agree that the Transport Canada test 
should have been disregarded. The data were meaningful in providing a 
basis for estimating the force imposed on the LATCH anchorages. The 
child restraint used was a reasonable representation of a child 
restraint with rigid LATCH anchorages, as were the tether anchorage and 
the tether strap. There was no basis at that time for setting a lower 
strength requirement.
    In concluding that the 15,000 N requirement should be retained, 
NHTSA has closely considered the information submitted by the Alliance 
in the petitions for reconsideration regarding an 8,000 N requirement. 
As discussed in the remainder of this section, we have decided to 
retain the requirement while changing the displacement limit of 125 mm 
to a prohibition against the tether anchorage separating completely 
from the vehicle seat or seat anchorage or the structure of the 
vehicle.
    The 15,000 N load requirement harmonizes with Canadian requirements 
for the strength of child restraint anchorage systems. On May 30, 2002, 
Transport Canada published its final regulation on universal anchorage 
systems for child restraints. Transport Canada requires the anchorage 
system to withstand (i.e., not separate completely from the vehicle 
seat or seat anchorage or the structure of the vehicle) when tested 
with an SFAD applying a 15,000 N force. Canada has analyzed NHTSA's 
evaluation of the petitioners' information and arguments and has 
concurred with our determination that the 15,000 N requirement meets 
the need for motor vehicle and child safety.
    ii. What Should the Requirement Be?

A. Petitioners Believe It Should Be 8,000 N

    The Alliance petitioned that an 8,000 N load application applied by 
an SFAD in the forward direction is sufficient for motor vehicle safety 
regardless of whether lower anchors or top tether anchors are being 
tested.
1. Comparison to Standard No. 210 Requirements
    The Alliance stated that an 8,000 N load is consistent with FMVSS 
No. 210 (``Seat Belt Assemblies,'' 49 CFR Sec.  571.210) with respect 
to scaling test forces and occupant sizes. The Alliance estimated that 
LATCH anchorages will be subjected to a 27 kilogram (kg) mass (about 60 
pounds). This value represented the combination of an occupant and a 
restraint system. (The mass of the occupant, a child, was estimated to 
be 18 kg (equal to about 40 pounds), while the mass of the child 
restraint was 9 kg (about 20 lb).) The petitioner stated that the 27 kg 
mass was 36 percent of the 75.5 kg derived mass for the lap belt test 
and 33 percent of the 81 kg derived mass for the lap/shoulder belt 
test. Thus, the petitioner said that an 8,000 N static test force was 
suitable since it is approximately 36 percent of the 22,200 N test 
force applied in lap belt tests and 33 percent of the 24,000 N test 
force used on lap/shoulder belt combinations.
2. Engineering Analysis
    The Alliance also believed that an 8,000 N load application in the 
forward direction is sufficient for motor vehicle safety based on an 
analysis of the forces that are likely to be imposed on a LATCH system 
in a crash. Petitioner submitted a February 16, 2000 document entitled, 
``Engineering Basis for Strength Tests of Child Restraint Anchors 
(FMVSS 225)'' (Docket Document 6160-19), to support its belief that an 
8,000 N load application is the maximum force level that should be 
attained in the anchorage strength test. The paper explained that the 
value that the standard should specify ``should be * * * consistent 
with the appropriate management of the energy of the child/CRS in a 
vehicle crash. It is this force which the anchorages must be able to 
resist in order to hold the CRS [child restraint system] in place 
during a crash.'' The petitioner believed, and the agency agrees, that 
in a frontal collision, the maximum expected force acting on the center 
of gravity of a child in a child restraint is calculated as the total 
mass of the child and the child restraint (``the child/CRS system'') 
multiplied by the acceleration of this system. Based on certain 
assumptions about the mass of the system and the acceleration of the 
system in a certain type of vehicle, the Alliance concluded that the 
LATCH anchorages would be subject to a force of only 8,000 N.
    As noted above, the petitioner made the following assumptions about 
the mass of this system: mass of child is 18 kilograms (kg) (equal to 
about 40 pounds); mass of the child restraint is 9 kg (about 20 lb); 
total mass of system is 27 kg (about 60 lb). The mass of the child 
restraint was estimated to be 9 kg (20 lb) based on current child 
restraints. The acceleration of the system was based on the typical 
peak sill acceleration of a 1999 Dodge Intrepid during a 30 mph rigid 
barrier collision, which was about 27 g, or 265 m/s2. The 
petitioner selected this vehicle because the car exhibited the highest 
peak acceleration within the group of competitive vehicles for which 
data were available for the analysis. Based on these estimates, the 
Alliance believed that the expected peak force for the child/CRS system 
would be: F = ma = (27 kg)(265 m/s2) = 7,200 N.
    Moreover, the Alliance argued that the force should be applied for 
only 250 ms, because the significant accelerations that occur in a 
crash occur during the first 200 ms of the crash event.
    With these considerations in mind, the Alliance suggested that the 
strength test procedure should specify the following:

    Starting with a preload of 500 N, ramp-up the force (in an 
approximately linear fashion to avoid overshoot and undershoot) to 
8,000 N and apply the force for 250 ms (providing a dwell to assure 
an accurate attainment of force magnitude and a conservative 
application time to assure accurate attainment of force magnitude 
and a conservative application time to assure accurate impulse.)
3. Static v. Dynamic Performance of Materials
    The Alliance further argued that the agency should not have based a 
static pull requirement on the results of a dynamic test since the two 
are not equivalent. The Alliance stated that there is nearly a two-fold 
``factor of

[[Page 38218]]

safety'' in a quasi-static test procedure when compared to the dynamic, 
crash-event performance of the same anchorage. ``Static and dynamic 
strengths of materials are fundamentally different due to strain rate 
sensitivity. Strain rate sensitivity defines how the strength of 
materials changes with the velocity of loading.'' The Alliance stated 
that the design of an appropriate static or quasi-static test to 
evaluate the strength of a component subject to dynamic loads should 
consider strain rate sensitivity as an important parameter. The 
petitioner stated that it believes that LATCH anchorages can withstand 
peak dynamic loads that are significantly larger than static test 
loads. The Alliance stated that it conducted component level tests to 
directly compare the static and dynamic ultimate strengths of lower 
LATCH anchorages (Docket comment 6160-27). The tests involved a static 
test-to-failure of an anchor loop and mounting bracket subassembly, and 
a dynamic test using a drop tower that created the same failure 
condition as the static test. In the static test, which used an Instron 
testing machine to load the anchor loop in the same direction as a 
child restraint would load it in a frontal crash, the failure mode was 
consistently found to be shear-out of the mounting hole.
    A drop tower test was then conducted to determine the acceleration 
that would produce the same failure mode as the static test. In the 
test, a 50 kg (110 lb) stack of laboratory weights was hung on an 
anchor loop. The drop tower height was increased until the post-test 
condition of the part was comparable to the parts subject to the static 
ultimate strength test. The acceleration measurements were filtered to 
SAE J211 60 CFC.
    The static failure mode was duplicated in drop tower tests with 
peak accelerations of 45 g (440 m/s2). The Alliance believed 
that the peak dynamic load that corresponds to the 45 g acceleration 
is: (50 kg)(440 m/s2) = 22,000 N. Thus, the overall 
deformation and shear-out failure was similar for a statically loaded 
part that failed at 16,500 N and a dynamically loaded part that had 
peak dynamic load of 22,000 N. That is, a significantly larger load was 
required to fail the part under dynamic conditions. The petitioner 
stated:

    The most severe vehicle impact conditions will result in a 
dynamic strength of approximately two times the static strength for 
the typical carbon steels used in automotive applications. The 
elevation of strength will depend on the selection of material. 
However, steel is one of the least strain rate sensitive engineering 
materials. If plastic or composite materials were used instead, the 
elevation of strength would be even larger. The data shown here 
represents essentially the worst case for strength elevation. A 
static or quasi-static test load that would simulate high-speed 
impact should be approximately 50% of the expected dynamic load.

B. NHTSA Decides On 15,000 N

1. Proportioning Seat Belt Loads
    NHTSA does not agree that it is appropriate to proportion Standard 
No. 210's load requirements. Loading of the seat belt anchorages by the 
vehicle's belt system when restraining an adult occupant is not 
analogous to the loading of the LATCH anchorages by a child in a child 
restraint. Differences in the geometry of the loading, the attachment 
of webbing and/or other components to the LATCH anchorages, and other 
factors that are not thoroughly known or evaluated argue for separate 
strength requirements for each seat set of anchorages. Further, the 
potential for misuse is greater with respect to the use of LATCH 
anchorages than with the use of vehicle belts to restraint adult 
occupants, as consumers in the past did not typically attach top 
tethers to the tether anchorage and often did not tightly attach child 
restraints to vehicle seats. Such misuse could increase or otherwise 
affect the loading of the LATCH anchorages in a manner that renders the 
loading of the anchorages dissimilar to the loading of seat belt 
anchorages.
2. Engineering Analysis
    The agency agrees with the Alliance that Standard No. 225's 
strength requirement can be based on an analysis of the forces that are 
likely to be imposed on a LATCH system in a crash. NHTSA agrees that 
the maximum expected force acting on the center of gravity of a child 
in a child restraint is calculated as the total mass of the child and 
the child restraint system (``the child/CRS system'') multiplied by the 
acceleration of the system. However, the agency does not agree with 
many of the Alliance's assumptions about the values that should be used 
for the mass and acceleration of the system.
    NHTSA believes that petitioner's assumptions about the mass of the 
child/CRS system are too narrow. Child restraint manufacturers can and 
do produce full-harness child restraints for children over 18 kg, as 
nothing in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for child 
restraint systems (Standard No. 213, 49 CFR 571.213) prohibits these 
child restraints to be recommended for children with masses above 18 kg 
(40 lb). As an example, Britax Child Safety, Inc., produces a number of 
5-point harness type restraints for children weighing more than 18 kg 
(40 lb). Currently, Britax produces the ``Marathon,'' a convertible 
restraint certified for use by children weighing up to 65 lb, the 
``Husky,'' a forward-facing only restraint certified for use by 
children weighing up to 80 lb, and the ``Traveler Plus,'' a restraint 
designed for special needs children and certified for use by children 
weighing up to 105 lb.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Britax provides the following consumer information for its 
LATCH-equipped child restraints certified for children weighing more 
than 40 lb: ``Use vehicle seat belt (not LATCH connectors) for 
installations with children weighing more than 48 pounds (21 kg.). 
Refer to the vehicle's owner's manual for the maximum weight rating 
for their LATCH anchors. Unless specified otherwise by the vehicle 
manufacturer, assume a 48 pound child is the vehicle LATCH anchor 
limit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency undertakes rulemaking to amend Standard No. 213 in 
response to changes in child restraint designs, uses and the safety 
needs of children. For example, NHTSA recently proposed to amend 
Standard No. 213, which currently applies to child restraints 
recommended for children up to 50 lb, to extend its applicability to 
restraints recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb (May 1, 2002, 
84 FR 21806). The Transportation Recall Enhancement and Documentation 
(TREAD) Act directed NHTSA to consider whether to amend Standard No. 
213 to cover restraints for children weighing up to 80 lb. To that end, 
the agency is working with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to 
develop a 10-year-old dummy for use in testing booster seats. Given the 
innovation in child restraints design and use and the move toward 
keeping children in child restraints longer, the mass of the child/CRS 
system on a LATCH system should be assumed to be greater than 18 kg. We 
will assume a child mass of 29.5 kg (65 lb), in line with the May 1, 
2002 rulemaking proposal.
    Further, the agency disagrees with the Alliance that the 
acceleration of the child/CRS system should be 27 g (265 m/
s2). NHTSA has reviewed data from joint NHTSA/Transport 
Canada 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 27 g. Based on a comparison of the 
pulse shapes for the same vehicle and the same test used by the 
Alliance and Transport Canada, NHTSA believes that the two entities 
obtained different peak accelerations because of the filter used on the 
data. The Alliance used a 30 Hz cutoff filter, rather than the SAE 
specified CFC 60 with a 100 Hz cutoff frequency.

[[Page 38219]]

    NHTSA has determined that the 100 Hz filter is the appropriate one 
to use when determining the accelerations and corresponding forces 
transmitted through the vehicle structure to the LATCH anchorages. SAE 
Recommended Practice J211, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation,'' specifies the various filter classes and 
associated cutoff frequencies that are to be used in impact tests. SAE 
J211 specifies Class 60 filters for vehicle accelerometer measurements, 
using a cutoff frequency of 100 Hz. NHTSA also specifies SAE J211 
filtering for dynamic testing, including testing specified in FMVSS No. 
208, FMVSS No. 214 (``Side Impact Protection''), and in the New Car 
Assessment Program, as well as in Part 572, the regulation for 
anthropomorphic test dummies. This is the filtering methodology that 
was employed by Transport Canada in obtaining the vehicle acceleration 
data used in its calculation of the maximum force levels through the 
center of gravity of the child and child restraint. The Alliance used 
the identical vehicle pulse using the same filtering methodology, but 
used a cutoff frequency of 30 Hz, instead of 100 Hz. Use of the 30 Hz 
cutoff frequency effectively eliminates the shorter duration, higher 
amplitude peaks that are seen when using a 100 Hz cutoff. However, such 
a low frequency filter eliminates a significant portion of the energy 
that is transmitted through the vehicle structure to the LATCH anchors. 
This is why SAE J211 specifies the higher cutoff frequency for such 
applications.
    The agency examined a total of forty-three 30-mph rigid barrier 
tests conducted in a joint NHTSA/Transport Canada test program to 
evaluate air bag performance. Plots were obtained for the left door 
sill acceleration filtering at both the 100 Hz and 30 Hz cutoff 
frequencies. The plots are provided in Docket NHTSA-98-3390. Using the 
industry standard SAE J211, the plots indicate that the average peak 
deceleration for the entire set of tests is 32.7 g, with a standard 
deviation of 7.87 g and a maximum of 51.6 g (for the model year 1999 
Plymouth Breeze). Based on these data, the agency has assumed the 
acceleration of the child/CRS system to be 48.4 g. This is based on the 
mean plus two standard deviations (32.7 g + 2(7.87 g)) of vehicle crash 
pulses conducted by NHTSA and by Transport Canada. We do not believe 
that one standard deviation is sufficient because with one standard 
deviation, 16 percent of the crash pulses would fall above that value. 
For two standard deviations, only 2.5 percent fall above.
    Assuming a child and child restraint mass of 29.7 kg (65 lb), the 
dynamic force expected to act through the center of gravity of the 
child/CRS system in a 48.4 g crash is approximately 14,100 N. The 
agency is not reducing Standard No. 225's 15,000 N load requirement to 
take account of the static loading condition of the requirement. 
Notwithstanding the Alliance's comparison of static to dynamic strength 
of one type of anchorage system, there is no consistent and direct 
correlation between static and dynamic strength of anchorage systems. 
Furthermore, the dynamic force on the system could be higher than 
15,000 N.
    Such is the case when vehicle accelerations are more than 48.4 g. 
In a 30 mph rigid barrier crash, the model year 1999 Plymouth Breeze 
had an acceleration of 51.6 g. The dynamic force acting through the 
center of gravity of the system (generated by a child/CRS mass of 29.5 
kg (65 lb)) was 18,500 N. The same calculations for an 80-lb child 
occupant result in a dynamic force of 20,600 N.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Note, however, that 80 pounds is the weight of an average 
11-year-old. An 80-lb child is likely to be restrained in the 
vehicle's seat belt system while using a belt-position booster seat. 
Such seats are not required to have LATCH attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the requirement is needed for real-world crashes above 
30 mph. Data from NHTSA's Fatal Analysis Reporting System and General 
Estimates System indicate that in 2000, there were 3,390,000 crashes 
above 30 mph. In response to the TREAD Act, NHTSA initiated a program 
to include child restraints in certain New Car Assessment Program 
(NCAP) vehicles. All vehicles and child restraints anchorages tested to 
date have performed well, with the exception of the model year (MY) 
2001 Toyota Echo (see NHTSA-98-3390-58). During the NCAP test conducted 
at 35 mph and with the Cosco Triad forward-facing LATCH child restraint 
with a Hybrid III 3-year-old dummy positioned in the rear passenger 
seat, the tether anchorage in the vehicle sheared. Following this 
structural failure of the tether anchorage, NHTSA conducted a number of 
tests in an attempt to understand why the anchorage in this particular 
vehicle failed when tether anchorages in all other NCAP vehicles tested 
had performed without incident.
    NHTSA had performed a FMVSS No. 225 compliance test on the MY 2000 
Toyota Echo, using the 5,300 N belt strap option set forth in Standard 
No. 225, S6.3.4.1. Both outer anchorages were loaded simultaneously 
with no failure of either anchorage. Following the failure of the 
tether anchorage in the NCAP vehicle, NHTSA performed a compliance test 
on the tether anchorage at the rear driver's side position of the NCAP 
vehicle, again using the 5,300 N belt strap load. Again, the tether 
anchorage passed the compliance test without incident. For information, 
the test was continued, increasing the load until the anchorage failed. 
This occurred at a load of approximately 6,300 N (a margin of 18 
percent above the requirements of the standard).
    Following this compliance test, NHTSA had the facility test the 
tether anchorage located at the center rear seating position of the MY 
2000 Toyota Echo. The configuration and the material of the tether 
anchorage of the MY 2000 Toyota Echo are the same as that of the MY 
2001 model. Instead of using the belt strap to apply a 5,300 N load as 
had been done on both previous occasions, the agency performed the test 
using the SFAD 1 test device. This test device attaches to the vehicle 
via the lap and shoulder belt and the top tether, and a load is applied 
horizontally through a specified point on the test device. As such, the 
SFAD 1 closely replicates the loads actually seen on the vehicle 
anchorages in an actual crash, as opposed to the belt strap test, which 
only loads the specific anchorage being tested.
    The SFAD 1 was loaded to 10,000 N, held for 1 second, and then 
increased until failure of the tether anchorage.\9\ In addition, the 
tether strap and the vehicle belt were instrumented to measure their 
respective loads. In this test, the tether anchorage failed upon 
application of a load of 13,000 N to the SFAD 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 10,000 N is the peak load required in S6.3.4 of FMVSS No. 
225, which represents the Transport Canada alternative compliance 
option permitted by current Standard No. 25 until August 31, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining possible differences between the Toyota Echo and other 
NCAP vehicles examined as part of this analysis, the agency measured 
the Echo's peak deceleration to be 44.3 g, using the SAE J211 filter 
with a 100 Hz cutoff frequency. This is 4.5 g higher than any other 
NCAP vehicle evaluated in the analysis, and more than 10 g higher than 
any vehicle pulse evaluated in the 30 mph crash tests performed jointly 
between Transport Canada and NHTSA. NHTSA requested information 
regarding the vehicle pulse of the Toyota Echo in a 30 mph crash from 
the manufacturer, and was told that it was 34 g.
    Toyota informed NHTSA that it had performed static tests with both 
a belt

[[Page 38220]]

strap load and with a SFAD 1 that replicate the results found in NHTSA 
testing described above. In each instance, the tether anchorage failed 
at a load measured to be 6,300 N at the tether anchorage itself. (In 
Toyota's test, the tether anchorage failed when tested with SFAD 1 at a 
load of 11,500 N. This is compared to the 13,000 N load applied by SFAD 
1 in our test of the center tether anchorage. These results are very 
comparable.) Toyota also conducted dynamic testing of the Toyota Echo 
with a reinforced anchorage design, at 35 mph, with no failure of the 
anchorage. In this dynamic test, Toyota measured the force at the 
tether anchorage itself to be 8,300 N. In comparing the difference 
between the static breakage load and the top tether load in a 35 mph 
dynamic test, Toyota found that the tether anchorage was able to 
withstand about 30 percent greater loads dynamically than statically. 
Toyota also used the 30 percent margin found in its analysis of the 
static breakage load using the belt strap test versus the measured 
tether load in the 35 mph test to estimate what the required SFAD load 
would need to be to pass a 35 mph dynamic test, given that the 
anchorage failed the SFAD test at 11,500 N. Multiplying the 11,500 N 
SFAD breakage load by 1.3 produced an answer of 15,000 N. Thus, Toyota 
estimated that a 15,000 N static load would be needed to ensure that 
the anchorage would not break in a 35 mph crash.
    The results of this testing indicate that high tether anchorage 
loads can occur in isolated, and admittedly severe crash conditions. In 
comparing the results of testing conducted on the initial Toyota Echo 
tether anchorage design and a reinforced design, Toyota confirmed that 
an anchorage designed to meet the 15,000 N static test strength 
requirement (the NHTSA requirement) would be necessary to ensure 
protection in a 35 mph crash in a vehicle with a relatively severe 
crash pulse such as the Toyota Echo.\10\ The testing also confirmed the 
ability of these anchorages to withstand greater loads under dynamic 
conditions as compared to static test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Toyota has stated that it is not aware of any tether 
anchorage failures in real-world crashes, and has since upgraded the 
tether anchorage designs in the Echo and other models with similar 
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the aforementioned reasons, NHTSA will not reduce Standard No. 
225's static strength test requirement of 15,000 N. The agency notes 
that a 15,000 N load requirement harmonizes with the 15,000 N Canadian 
requirement for the strength of child restraint anchorage systems. 
Thus, retention of the standard's strength requirement of 15,000 N 
furthers the agency's efforts to harmonize its standards with foreign 
countries and international bodies to the extent consistent with 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act).
    In a related matter, we deny a petition for reconsideration of the 
March 1999 rule from E-Z-On Products, Inc. of Florida. Petitioner E-Z-
On Products asked that NHTSA set the standard's tether anchorage 
strength requirement at a level sufficient to account for usage by 
children in safety vests who weigh up to 120 lb.
    As discussed in previous sections, the agency has based the 
determination of the maximum strength requirements on assumptions 
regarding the mass of the system and vehicle decelerations. 
Specifically, with respect to the mass of the child, the agency has 
used 65 lb, as proposed in the TREAD NPRM, which exceeds the current 
limit of Standard No. 213's applicability by 15 lb. While there are 
some vest systems and other child restraint systems that are certified 
for higher weights, it would be unreasonable to require each vehicle 
manufacturer to design tether anchorages for occupants weighing nearly 
twice the limit contemplated by the existing child restraint standard.
    Further, 120 lb is greater than the weight of a 5th percentile 
female adult. Persons of this weight should be restrained by the 
vehicle belt system, not the child restraint anchorage system. One of 
the purposes of establishing a standard requiring the installation of 
child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles was to ``optimize seat 
belts to restrain older children, teenagers, and adults.'' (64 FR at 
10788) In a similar vein, the agency believes child restraint anchorage 
systems can best be optimized by focusing on the masses generated by 
children in child restraints and by not adding to the burden of the 
LATCH system the goal of restraining older passengers as well. The 
agency notes that it expects to address this matter further in the 
future. We are considering the need for labeling and printed 
instructions, as well as consumer information, to minimize the 
potential misuse of using LATCH to restrain persons weighing more than 
65 lb.

C. NHTSA Replaces Displacement Limit

    The March 1999 final rule had specified that any point on the 
tether anchorage must not be displaced more than 125 mm in the 
standard's strength test. The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration 
of the 125 mm displacement limit specified in S6.3.2, stating, inter 
alia, that the displacement requirement was not practicable or 
objective. In the August 1999 response to petitions for 
reconsideration, NHTSA moved the location of the displacement 
measurement to point X on the test device and specified that 
displacement is measured in the horizontal direction. The agency also 
denied the suggestion to replace the displacement limit with an 
alternative that the tether anchorage ``withstand'' the required forces 
because a displacement limit is more objective than the latter in 
determining whether an anchorage met the performance criteria. 64 FR at 
47576.
    The Alliance petitioned again following the denial (docket 6160-
11), asking that the displacement limits for tests using SFADs 1 and 2 
be deleted. Petitioner stated that displacement of Point X on SFAD 1 is 
not strongly influenced by tether anchorage characteristics, but by the 
characteristics of the vehicle seat belt. Petitioner also stated that 
to comply with the 125 mm displacement criterion, vehicle manufacturers 
may be forced to redesign lap and lap/shoulder belts and their anchors 
that would require extensive re-testing of the systems. Petitioner 
explained that redesign is necessary because without it, the belts 
attached to SFAD 1 will rotate, as the seat cushion is compressed, 
contributing significantly to the displacement of point X. Further, the 
petitioner stated that it is likely that lap belt angles would have to 
be reduced and anchorage locations moved in order to allow the belt to 
better control the test fixture's displacement (which is primarily due 
to the belt and not to the tether anchorage). One negative safety 
consequence of such changes, stated the Alliance, would be increased 
risk of a belted occupant slipping under the lap portion of the belt 
during a crash. ``This risk would be highest for smaller occupants, 
particularly children, who are frequent rear seat occupants.''
    NHTSA has decided to grant petitioner's request to replace the 125 
mm displacement limit with different performance criteria for the 
performance of the tether anchorage. (As discussed in the next section, 
this change has not been made for tests of the lower LATCH anchorages 
tested without the tether attached.) One of the reasons underlying the 
rulemaking to require child restraint anchorage systems is to make the 
means of attaching child restraints independent of the vehicle's belt 
system. By making the two systems independent, vehicle manufacturers 
can optimize vehicle seating and belt systems to better protect older 
children

[[Page 38221]]

and the adult population, without worrying about the incompatibilities 
of those designs with child restraint systems. The petitioner has shown 
that the 125 mm displacement limit would have the effect of 
intertwining the two systems again, without a compelling need to do so, 
contrary to the intent of the rulemaking. By causing vehicle 
manufacturers to reduce lap belt angles, the LATCH system would limit 
the ability of vehicle manufacturers to optimize seat belt designs that 
could greatly improve the restraint of older children, teenagers, and 
adults.
    Manufacturers might have to over-design to meet both the 15,000 N 
strength requirement of the standard and a displacement limit for 
LATCH-equipped seating positions, which could result in the unnecessary 
stiffening of vehicle seat and floor structures and other design 
changes that curtail the ability of belt systems to restrain occupants.
    A displacement limit is extremely objective. However, a 
displacement limit impedes manufacturers' abilities to optimize seating 
and belt designs to better restrain older children, teenagers and 
adults. Sufficient objectivity can be achieved in a manner other than 
by specifying the displacement limit. Instead of the 125 mm 
displacement limit, the standard will specify that, when subjected to 
the 15,000 N test load, the tether anchorage shall not separate 
completely from the vehicle seat or seat anchorage or the structure of 
the vehicle. The language harmonizes with that of Transport Canada's 
Regulation 210.2, ``Lower Universal Anchorage Systems for Restraint 
Systems and Booster Cushions'' (Standard 210.2), which specifies that 
``A lower universal anchorage system installed in a row of designated 
seating positions shall not separate completely from the vehicle seat 
or seat anchorage or the structure of the vehicle when tested'' by 
pulling with a force of 15,000 N (``Strength Requirements'').
    The establishment of a displacement limit for the static strength 
test that is both objective and related directly to the safety 
performance of the system is difficult for many reasons. Standard No. 
225 permits tether anchorages to be located in a wide range of vehicle 
locations relative to the placement of the child restraint itself, 
e.g., on the rear filler panel, on the floor, on the roof, etc. Because 
of this design latitude, the forces applied through the tether strap on 
the SFAD test device to the anchorages themselves vary widely in both 
magnitude and direction. As such, the measurement of displacement of 
the tether anchorage--either in a horizontal direction or in a 
direction in line with the application of force--may or may not be 
relevant to the performance of the child restraint. On the other hand, 
if the anchorage does not structurally fail during the very slow (27 +/
- 3 seconds) application of force (``withstands'' the force) during the 
static compliance test, the agency is confident that the same anchorage 
will perform well in dynamic crash conditions. As noted above, the 
criteria adopted today are comparable to those Transport Canada 
incorporated into that country's final regulation on universal child 
restraint anchorage systems.
2. Strength of Lower Anchorages
    i. 11,000 N Requirement. The 11,000 N force level was supported by 
test data obtained from Transport Canada. Canada performed 48.3 km/h 
(30 mph) dynamic testing of a 6-year-old child dummy in a 17 lb booster 
that was attached to the vehicle seat assembly by rigid LATCH 
attachments on the child restraint. Dynamic loads recorded at one lower 
bar was approximately 5,500 N, resulting in what the agency believed to 
be a combined dynamic load of about 11,000 N.
    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the strength 
requirement, believing that an 8,000 N load application in the forward 
direction is sufficient for motor vehicle safety. The reasons 
underlying the petitioner's view were the same ones discussed above 
regarding the 15,000 N requirement for testing tether anchorages. NHTSA 
is denying the petitioner's request, for the same reasons the agency 
has denied the request to reduce the tether anchorage requirements.
    NHTSA has regarded the test of the two lower LATCH anchorages as a 
misuse test. Specifying that the tether anchorage would not be attached 
in the test was consistent with the agency's objective of ensuring that 
the child restraint anchorages system will retain the child restraint 
system in the event that the tether is misused or not used at all (64 
FR 10805). Lower performance requirements could be justified for the 
misuse situation, since the full performance of the safety system is 
not being assessed. There are precedents in the agency's safety 
standards where NHTSA tests in a misuse condition to ensure a minimum 
level of performance if misuse occurs, and imposes less stringent 
performance requirements for that test. (See, e.g., S6.1.1(b)(2) of 
Standard No. 213, Test Configuration II, which is a 20 mph misuse test 
of certain child restraints. Test Configuration II is used to assess 
the performance of child restraints in misuse conditions such as: 
tether unattached, and a fixed or movable surface in front of test 
dummy unbuckled.)
    In assessing the Alliance's petition for reconsideration of the 
lower anchorage strength requirement, NHTSA recognizes that the crash 
forces transmitted to the child and CRS through the LATCH anchorage 
system would be the same regardless of whether the CRS is attached to 
the vehicle via the LATCH (tethers plus lower anchorages) or only the 
lower anchorages. We continue to stress the need to install child 
restraints (convertible and forward-facing CRS) properly by securing 
them to the vehicle by the full LATCH system, or with a tether and seat 
belt, in order to obtain the full protective benefit of the restraint 
system. The agency also plans to revise Buying A Safer Car For Child 
Passengers and other consumer information materials to better educate 
parents and caregivers about the added level of protection afforded by 
the tether. As part of the agency's efforts to inform consumers, new 
LATCH literature has been developed that explains the use of the new 
system. Additionally, the agency's training curriculum is being updated 
and revised to ensure that all trained child passenger safety 
technicians are properly informed that using the tether enhances the 
safety benefits of child restraints.
    The March 1999 final rule, however, allows convertible cars and 
school buses to meet the CRS anchorage requirements by installing only 
the lower LATCH anchorages due to the practical difficulties concerning 
the installation of tether anchorages on these vehicles. In view of 
several interpretations concerning positioning of tether anchorages in 
locations that are recessed into the seat back or under the seat 
itself, the agency wants to reconsider the practicability issue and is 
interested in information showing the degree of difficulty of 
installing tether anchorages on those vehicles. The zone in which the 
tether anchorage may be located as specified in the standard is 
relatively large, possibly affording vehicle manufacturers wide 
latitude in designing viable alternatives.
    Further, the agency is planning to issue a notice in the future 
addressing a new generation school bus occupant protection system. The 
agency is evaluating alternative restraint systems and seating systems 
to determine the feasibility of requiring these in school buses. The 
agency will address the feasibility and need to incorporate tether 
anchorages on school buses as part of that work.

[[Page 38222]]

    In addition, the agency is also considering whether to require 
tethers on all child restraints. Standard No. 213 does not require 
tethers per se. Instead, the standard subjects forward-facing child 
restraints to a 720 mm (28-inch) head excursion limit, which a 
restraint may meet tethered. (An 813 mm (32-inch) head excursion limit 
must be met untethered.) Child restraints that have LATCH attachments 
able to meet the 720 mm head excursion limit without a tether, and that 
do not have a tether, will not be able to take advantage of the 
superior performance of the vehicle's full 3-point LATCH system. For 
this reason, the agency is interested in information on requiring 
tethers on all forward-facing child restraints, to the extent 
practicable.
    ii. Displacement Limit. The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration 
of the 125 mm displacement limit specified in S9.4.1. We responded to 
its petition on this issue by denying the suggestion to replace the 
displacement limit with an alternative that the anchorage ``withstand'' 
the required forces, because a displacement limit is more objective 
than the latter in determining whether an anchorage met the performance 
criteria. 64 FR at 47576. The Alliance petitioned again following the 
denial (docket 6160-11). Petitioner stated that the displacement limit 
``effectively curtails the options available to the restraint system 
designer to manage crash energy and provide protection to the 
occupant.'' Petitioner stated that lower excursion limits subject 
occupants to higher accelerations. The Alliance stated (6160-11):

    Allowing the occupant to undergo displacement during impact, as 
is done with a seat belt load limiter, is a powerful way to limit 
occupant accelerations and the associated injury potential. If an 
occupant strikes an object in a vehicle, high accelerations may 
result. This is a motivation to limit excursion. However, 
restricting all vehicles to an excursion limit of 125 mm denies 
restraint system designers flexibility to manage crash energy in a 
way that takes advantage of available space. Many vehicles used to 
transport children (minivans, sport utility vehicles, quad-cab style 
trucks, etc.) have large rear seating areas. Such vehicles have the 
space necessary to permit larger excursions of a CRS without an 
increased risk of interior impact. A fixed limit of 125 mm of 
excursion does not allow the available space to be used to its full 
potential.

    The Alliance suggested an alternative approach to the 125 mm 
displacement limit for the forward strength test (S9.4.1(a)). 
Petitioner suggested that displacement should be permitted to vary from 
125 to 200 mm, depending on the clearance that is in the vehicle's rear 
seat (the distance between the rearward surface of the front seat back 
to the forward surface of the rear seat back). This assumed a maximum 
applied load of 8,000 N. The petitioner explained that 50 mm more 
excursion would reduce the dynamic force on the child/CRS system since 
the energy is absorbed by motion through a greater distance. Petitioner 
explained that 50 mm more would reduce a 23 g force to 16 g.
    NHTSA has granted this petition in part. We are increasing the 125 
mm displacement limit of S9.4.1(a) for the forward pull test. Instead 
of varying displacement depending on available rear seat clearance, the 
agency has decided to increase the displacement limit to 175 mm. A 
single value of 175 mm would increase the ease with which a compliance 
test could be conducted. Increasing the displacement limit to 175 mm 
would increase manufacturers' ability to limit accelerations while 
keeping the test as objective as possible. The 175 mm displacement 
limit is established to provide a limit at the 11,000 N loading level 
that is consistent with the petitioner's suggested 125 mm displacement 
limit at the 8,000 N loading level (Docket 6160-11).
    The Alliance also suggested an alternative approach to the 125 mm 
displacement limit for the lateral strength tests (S9.4.1(b)). 
Petitioner suggested that displacement should be 125 mm for outboard 
seating positions (see definition, 49 CFR 571.3) and 150 mm for 
positions other than outboard seating positions. The reasons for the 
suggestion are the same as those discussed for the forward pull test 
(S9.4.1(a)).
    NHTSA has granted this request and has increased the displacement 
limit for positions other than outboard seating positions from 125 mm 
to 150 mm. A single value of 150 mm would increase the ease with which 
a compliance test could be conducted. An increase of 25 mm would allow 
manufacturers the ability to use displacement to better manage the 
crash forces on the child/CRS system without sacrificing safety.
    iii. Ten-Second Hold Time. The test procedures for the strength 
test of the lower LATCH anchorages are set forth in S11of Standard No. 
225. S11(a) specifies that the 11,000 N load is applied in the forward 
direction as linearly as practicable from a 500 N preload to a full 
force application of 11,000 N in not less than 24 seconds and not more 
than 30 seconds, and maintained at an 11,000 N level for 10 seconds. 
S11(b) specifies the same procedure for the lateral force test, except 
that the full force application is 5,000 N.
    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the force 
application profile for the lower anchorages. Petitioner requested that 
FMVSS No. 225 be revised to permit the manufacturer latitude in 
specifying the period of time in which the force is applied, within 30 
seconds, as long as the rate does not exceed 135,000 N/s. Transport 
Canada permits the vehicle manufacturer to select the force application 
time. Further, the draft ISO test procedure requires the force to be 
applied in 2 seconds. Thus, the Alliance contended that lower 
anchorages would have to be tested to different conditions since no 
single test can be performed to satisfy all regulatory requirements. 
The Alliance wanted Standard No. 225's test procedure to allow 
manufacturers to select the force application time.
    In the August 1999 final rule, we denied the petitioner's request 
that manufacturers be permitted to specify the force application rate 
based on our belief that the force should be applied at a constant rate 
for as long a time period as possible. This is to assure that the test 
adequately measures the strength of the anchorage. Metal structures 
generally can withstand greater forces under a faster rate of 
application than under a slower one. This means that an anchorage that 
fails when the required force is reached after 30 seconds might not 
fail if the required force is reached in a very short period of time. 
Adopting the petitioner's request could have allowed the use of weaker 
anchorages, resulting in a possible reduction of safety.
    We also explained that the application rate is justified also 
because Standard No. 225 uses a laboratory test instead of a crash test 
to measure the strength of child restraint anchorages. Safety 
requirements can evaluate the performance of vehicle safety equipment 
by providing for test conditions that are structured to ensure the 
safety equipment will perform adequately in actual crash conditions 
without simulating those conditions. Test conditions that do not 
simulate actual crash conditions are developed generally when it would 
be infeasible or too costly to design and/or implement any single test 
procedure or series of test procedures that reasonably simulates the 
conditions to which the safety equipment will be exposed, including 
possible crash conditions and possible degradation over time because of 
exposure to environmental factors. The test conditions specified for 
this type of safety requirement are intended to subject the vehicle 
safety equipment to force or exposure levels that are sufficiently high 
that one can reasonably

[[Page 38223]]

conclude that the equipment is unlikely to fail as a result of exposure 
to even severe crash conditions or environmental exposures. Such test 
conditions are necessarily more severe than typical crash conditions, 
to ensure a margin of safety in the standard. That is, even if the test 
conditions were not directly representative of actual crash conditions, 
the test conditions are so demanding that one can confidently predict 
that equipment that withstands the test conditions will withstand most 
crash conditions, even severe crash conditions.
    The specification to apply the test load over 27 +/- 3 seconds is 
not intended to be representative of an actual crash condition. 
Instead, it represents a test condition intended to be sufficiently 
demanding to ensure that the anchorage will not fail even under the 
most severe crash conditions. Thus, NHTSA denies the petitioner's 
request to revise the 27 +/- 3 second load application.
    On the other hand, the 10 second hold time for the full load 
application in Standard No. 225 is reduced to 1 second. A 1-second hold 
time is currently specified for the tether anchorage test of Standard 
No. 225 (S8.1(c)(3)). The agency has determined that this change is not 
likely to result in a reduction of safety. A 1-second hold time is 
still much longer than an actual crash event, which lasts typically 250 
milliseconds, and will allow for scrutiny of the performance of the 
anchorages. In addition, the agency believes that much of the changes 
in the anchorages' material structure will occur during the 27 +/- 3 
seconds load application. The agency notes that this amendment 
harmonizes the hold time with a Transport Canada requirement that has 
been in place for many years regarding tether anchorages. Accordingly, 
S11(a) and (b) are revised to specify that the loads are held for 1 
second.
3. Phasing-In Strength Requirements
    The period during which vehicle manufacturers may meet the Canadian 
and draft ISO requirements for tether and lower LATCH anchorages, 
respectively, is currently scheduled to end on August 31, 2004. That 
means that, absent further amendment, vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2004 will have to meet the 15,000 and 11,000 N strength 
requirements for those anchorages. This final rule provides more time 
to manufacturers to meet the requirements for a few model lines.
    The agency is providing additional time because this final rule 
makes several important amendments to requirements of the standard 
relating to how the 15,000 and 11,000 N loads are applied and how the 
agency determines compliance with the requirements. Examples of these 
are the change from the 125 mm displacement criterion for the tether 
anchorage to one that determines whether the anchorage withstood the 
force by assessing the deformation of the structure; and the change in 
the load application rate for the 11,000 N load for the lower 
anchorages from 10 seconds to 1 second. The agency has determined that 
these changes may necessitate the reassessment by manufacturers of some 
vehicle models as to whether the vehicles comply with the amended 
standard. Further, some manufacturers may need more time than the 
period from now until August 31, 2004 to make whatever changes are 
needed to the structure of the vehicles to meet the new requirements.
    This final rule gives vehicle manufacturers an additional year, for 
a few model lines, to assess whether their vehicles meet this rule's 
amended strength requirements and to make necessary changes to meet the 
requirements. Ninety (90) percent of the vehicles they manufacture on 
or after September 1, 2004 and before September 1, 2005 must be 
certified as meeting the amended strength requirements. One hundred 
(100) percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 
2005 must be certified as meeting the requirements. For final-stage 
manufacturers, alterers and small volume manufacturers, this rule 
permits these manufacturers to meet the Canadian or draft ISO 
requirements for all their vehicles until September 1, 2005. These 
phase-in requirements are set forth in a new S16 that is added to the 
standard. Reporting requirements implementing the phase-in are also set 
forth in Part 596.
4. Superwebbing
    The March 1999 final rule specified that the SFAD have a tether 
strap that attaches to the vehicle's tether anchorage. The rule 
specified that the tether strap consists of webbing that must meet the 
breaking strength and elongation limits for lap belt assemblies, 
specified in Standard No. 209, ``Seat Belt Assemblies'' (49 CFR 
571.209). The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of this decision, 
stating that there is too much variation in elongation of the webbing 
to test the tether anchorage. NHTSA responded to the petition in the 
August 1999 final rule, by stating that it will use a steel cable to 
attach the SFAD to the tether anchorage. The agency believed that test 
complications due to elongation of a strap would be minimized if a 
steel cable were used.
    Ford and the Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the use of 
steel cable. Petitioners stated that using cable results in a less 
realistic test, and the displacement measured in such a test would not 
be representative of real world tether anchor/strap performance. The 
Alliance suggested specifying a narrow range of elongation, such as 
between 2 and 4 percent (Docket 6160-21) at a tensile load of 14,490 
lb. The Alliance also petitioned NHTSA to include a specification to 
pretension all belt systems, including the tether strap, prior to 
testing.
    Today's final rule changes the specification for use of steel cable 
and specifies use of webbing material with an elongation limit of 4 
percent at a tensile load of 65 kN (14,612 lb). This rule includes the 
requirement to pretension the tether strap prior to the test.
5. Technical Amendments
    i. SFAD 2. In a petition for reconsideration, Mitsubishi noted that 
Figure 17 of FMVSS No. 225, which depicts the dimensions of the SFAD 2 
test device, only specifies a tether attachment point somewhere near 
the top of the device. Mitsubishi believed that leaving the specific 
location of the attachment point and the shape and radius of the hole 
to the discretion of each vehicle manufacturer and test laboratory will 
lead to wide variation in the loading conditions in tether anchorage 
testing. Mitsubishi requested NHTSA to identify specific requirements 
for the location and dimensions of the SFAD 2 tether attachment point.
    We have revised Figure 17 to make it clear that the tether 
attachment point on SFAD 2 is the same as on the SFAD 1 test device 
depicted in Figures 12 to 15 of FMVSS No. 225, both in location and 
dimension.
    ii. Tether Anchorage Zone. In S6.2.1 of Standard No. 225 states: 
``* * * 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 * * *.'' Figure 3 shows the front edge of the zone as 
extending along the torso line reference plane under the seat and then 
following the contour of the vehicle seat bottom and seat back up to a 
point on the seat back. In a letter to the agency, American Suzuki 
Motor Company noted that Figures 3 to 7 of Standard No. 225 did not 
provide dimensions as to the location of the front edge of the shaded 
zone, except with regard to the ``strap wrap-around area'' at the top 
of a

[[Page 38224]]

vehicle seat back. Suzuki asked whether the standard permitted an 
anchorage to be located in the recessed area of the seat back.
    In a November 8, 2002 interpretation letter, the agency stated 
NHTSA did not intend to exclude part of the seat back from the shaded 
zone. Thus, a tether anchorage that is recessed in the seat back is 
permitted. However, the agency stated, the shaded zone does not include 
the strap wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back, so the 
anchorage must not be located in that wrap-around area. In reply to 
another question from Suzuki, NHTSA also stated that for the area under 
the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is defined by 
the torso line reference plane. Today's final rule makes a technical 
amendment to S6.2.1 to clarify the standard with respect to these 
provisions.

g. Denial of Petition on Backless Booster Systems

    The March 1999 final rule generally required all child restraint 
systems to be equipped with components that attach to a vehicle's LATCH 
system (this section refers to these components as ``LATCH 
components'') (S5.3.1 of Standard No. 213). The rule excluded belt-
positioning seats from the requirement. Standard No. 213 defines 
``belt-positioning seat'' as:

a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to 
improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and 
that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural 
element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso 
in a forward impact.

    Belt-positioning seats were excluded from the requirement because 
these seats do not have compatibility problems attaching to the vehicle 
seat using seat belts. They simply form a seating platform for the 
child. No part of the child seat restrains forward movement of the 
child. The vehicle's seat belts are used to restrain the child, just as 
they are used on other occupants, and are not used to attach the child 
restraint to the vehicle seat.
    Belt-positioning seats and ``backless child restraint system'' are 
both ``booster seats'' under Standard No. 213. ``Backless child 
restraint system'' means:

a child restraint, other than a belt-positioning seat, that consists 
of a seating platform that does not extend up to provide a cushion 
for the child's back or head and has a structural element designed 
to restrain forward motion of the child's torso in a forward impact.

    Cosco, Inc., petitioned the agency to reconsider not excluding 
backless child restraints from the requirement that the restraints must 
be equipped with LATCH components. Cosco manufactures a backless child 
restraint that uses a shield-like structural element to restrain a 
child occupant's torso in a frontal collision. (These restraint systems 
are commonly called ``shield boosters.'') \11\ Petitioner believed that 
shield boosters are similar to belt-positioning boosters because they 
``rely upon the type 1 or type 2 seat belt assembly to restrain the 
occupant. This requires that the person seating the child in the 
restraint system buckle and unbuckle the vehicle seat belt assembly 
each time the product is used.'' Accordingly, Cosco believed that 
requiring that backless booster seats incorporate LATCH components ``is 
inconsistent with its [the rule's] exclusion of backless belt-
positioning booster seats * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Used with the shield, the restraint is recommended for 
children weighing between 30 and 40 lb. Cosco's backless child 
restraint, the ``Grand Explorer,'' is also designed so that the 
shield can be removed, to convert the restraint to a belt-
positioning seat. As a belt-positioning seat, the restraint is used 
with a vehicle's lap/shoulder (Type 2) belt system. Cosco's petition 
pertains to the configuration that the restraint is in with the 
shield in place (i.e., as a ``backless child restraint system'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is denying Cosco's petition. NHTSA disagrees with Cosco 
that backless booster seats are sufficiently similar to belt-
positioning seats that they should be excluded from having LATCH 
components. One of the purposes of Standard No. 225 and the 
complementary provisions in Standard No. 213 was to free seat belts 
from having to fulfill two functions. The primary purpose of seat belts 
has always been to protect older children, teenagers and adults from 
serious injury in vehicle crashes. A secondary purpose of seat belts 
has been to install child restraints in vehicles. Attempting to design 
seat belts to achieve the first purpose has sometimes led to design 
choices that may have made it more difficult for the belts to achieve 
the second purpose (tightly securing a child restraint). The LATCH 
system will help vehicle and seat belt manufacturers to more 
effectively optimize seat belts to restrain older children, teenagers 
and adults.
    Belt-positioning seats were excluded from the LATCH program because 
they do not tax seat belts to perform a dual function. The seats 
improve the ability of seat belts to perform their primary purpose, 
which is to protect the child occupant from serious injury. Belt-
positioning seats do not call upon the seat belt to attach the child 
restraint to the vehicle in any manner. In contrast, shield boosters 
rely on seat belts to assist in restraining the child and to attach the 
child restraint to the vehicle seat. This dependency on seat belts to 
perform the latter function potentially restricts the ability of seat 
belts to perform their primary function. Further, as vehicle 
manufacturers begin to optimize seat belts for the protection of older 
children, teens and adults, some belt designs may be hard for motorists 
to use to attach a backless booster seat to a vehicle seat. The 
dependency of backless booster seats on vehicle seat belts to attach 
the child restraints is what the LATCH rulemaking sought to prevent. 
Accordingly, petitioner's request is not consistent with the goals of 
the rulemaking and is hereby denied.

III. 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 do not warrant 
preparation of a full final regulatory evaluation. This document 
resolves the remaining issues from the petitions for reconsideration of 
the final rules published in March and August 1999 and in July 2000. 
Manufacturers will be minimally affected by this rulemaking because 
generally it does not change the manufacturers' responsibilities to 
install tether anchorages and LATCH systems previously established by 
the March 1999, August 1999, and July 2000 final rules. This rule 
provides slightly more flexibility in how vehicle seat backs must be 
marked to identify the presence and location of the lower LATCH 
anchorages that are hidden from view. It also provides for greater 
leeway to recess the lower anchorages further rearward in the seat 
bight. This rule clarifies some requirements and test procedures, but 
overall does not impose new test burdens.

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

[[Page 38225]]

businesses. Even if there are motor vehicle manufacturers that qualify 
as small entities, this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on them because it generally does not change the manufacturers' 
responsibilities to install tether anchorages and LATCH systems on the 
compliance dates of the March 1999 and July 2000 final rules. 
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 (Pub. L. 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) (Pub. L. 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 a draft 
standard developed by the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO). ISO is a worldwide voluntary federation of ISO 
member bodies. In responding to petitioners for reconsideration, we 
considered the draft ISO standard to guide our decision-making to the 
extent consistent with the Safety Act. The notable differences between 
the draft ISO standard and Standard No. 225 are discussed in the March 
1999 final rule (64 FR 10801-10802) and the August 1999 final rule 
(footnote 10, 64 FR 47570). Regarding today's final rule, the most 
significant of these are the magnitude of the force that is applied to 
the lower anchorages (8,000 N instead of 11,000 N); the rate that the 
force is applied to the lower anchorages in a compliance test (the 
draft ISO standard specifies that the force is fully applied within a 
time period of two seconds or less, while under our test procedure 
NHTSA specifies the rate and the time period for full application of 
the force may be up to 30 seconds); and the period of time that the 
force is held (the draft ISO standard specifies that the 8,000 N force 
is held for a period of 0.25 seconds, while we specify that the 11,000 
N force is held for 1 second). NHTSA has determined that the 11,000 N 
force and the manner and period of time it is applied, are needed to 
represent a test condition that is sufficiently demanding to ensure 
that the anchorages will not fail even under the most severe crash 
conditions. We also considered the regulations developed by Transport 
Canada in making decisions about the standard's strength requirements.

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

    NHTSA has determined that phasing-in the strength requirements of 
this rule will impose new collection of information burdens within the 
meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Under the PRA, 
the agency must publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 
60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public 
and affected agencies concerning each collection of information. The 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has promulgated regulations 
describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's 
regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), agencies must ask for public comment on 
the following:
    (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and,
    (4) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA is publishing a 
document in today's Federal Register seeking public comment on the 
collection of information relating to the one-year phase-in of the 
strength requirement (Docket No. 02-14038).

i. Viewing Docket Submissions

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-
9324). You may visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If

[[Page 38226]]

the docket number were ``NHTSA-2002-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

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

49 CFR Part 596

    Infants and children, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 571.225 is amended by:
0
a. Adding S4.6;
0
b. Revising the introductory paragraph of S6.2.1;
0
c. Adding S6.2.1.2(c);
0
d. Revising the introductory paragraph of S6.3, S6.3.1, the 
introductory paragraph of S8, S8.1(b), S9, S9.1.1(b), S9.1.1(c);
0
e. Removing and reserving S9.1.1(d) and (e);
0
f. Revising S9.1.1(f);
0
g. Revising S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3;
0
h. Revising S9.4.1, S9.5(a)(2) and (a)(3);
0
i. Adding S9.5(a)(4);
0
j. Revising S9.5(b), S11(a) and (b);
0
k. Adding S16;
0
l. Revising Figure 17 and adding Figures 21 and 22.
0
The revised and added paragraphs and figures read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S4.6 Adjustable seats. (a) A vehicle that is equipped with a 
forward-facing rear designated seating position that can be relocated 
such that it is capable of being used at either an outboard or non-
outboard forward-facing seating position shall be considered as having 
a forward-facing non-outboard seating position. Such an adjustable seat 
must be equipped with a tether anchorage (with or without the lower 
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system) if the vehicle does 
not have another forward-facing non-outboard seating position that is 
so equipped.
    (b) Tether and lower anchorages shall be available for use at all 
times, except when the seating position for which it is installed is 
not available for use because the vehicle seat has been removed or 
converted to an alternate use such as the carrying of cargo.
* * * * *
    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.) A tether anchorage may be recessed in the seat back, 
provided that it is not in the strap wrap-around area at the top of the 
vehicle seat back. For the area under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost 
edge of the shaded zone is defined by the torso line reference plane.
* * * * *
    S6.2.1.2(c) The measurement of the location of the flexible or 
deployable routing device described in S6.2.1.2(b)(1) is made with SFAD 
2 properly attached to the lower anchorages. A 40 mm wide nylon tether 
strap is routed through the routing device and attached to the tether 
anchorage in accordance with the written instructions required by S12 
of this standard. The forwardmost contact point between the strap and 
the routing device must be within the stated limit when the tether 
strap is flat against the top surface of the SFAD and tensioned to 55 
to 65 N. In seating positions without lower anchorages of a child 
restraint anchorage system, the SFAD 2 is held with its central lateral 
plane in the central vertical longitudinal plane of the seating 
position. The adjustable anchor attaching bars of the SFAD 2 are 
replaced by spacers that end flush with the back surface of the SFAD.
* * * * *
    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. Vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and before September 1, 2005 
must meet the requirements of S6.3.1 of this standard, except as 
provided in S16 of this standard. Vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2005 must meet the requirements of S6.3.1.
    S6.3.1 Subject to S6.3.2, when tested in accordance with S8, after 
preloading the device with a force of 500 N, the tether anchorage must 
not separate completely from the vehicle seat or seat anchorage or the 
structure of the vehicle.
* * * * *
    S8 Test procedures. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements of 
S6.3.1 and S6.3.3 when tested according to the following procedures. 
Where a range of values is specified, the vehicle shall be able to meet 
the requirements at all points within the range. For the testing 
specified in these procedures, the SFAD used in the test has a tether 
strap consisting of webbing material with an elongation limit of 4 
percent at a tensile load of 65,000 N (14,612 lb). Pretension the 
tether strap with 53.5 N to 67 N of preload prior to the test. The 
strap is fitted at one end with a high strength steel tether hook for 
attachment to the tether anchorage. The tether hook meets the 
specifications in Standard No. 213 (49 CFR Sec.  571.213) as to the 
configuration and geometry of tether hooks required by the standard. A 
steel cable is connected to the X point through which the test force is 
applied.
* * * * *
    (b) Attach the SFAD 1 to the vehicle seat using the vehicle belts 
or the SFAD 2 to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage 
system, as appropriate, and attach the test device to the tether 
anchorage, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided 
pursuant to S12 of this standard. For the testing specified in this 
procedure, if SFAD 1 cannot be attached using the vehicle belts because 
of the location of the vehicle belt buckle, the test device is attached 
by material whose breaking strength is

[[Page 38227]]

equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the 
seat belt assembly installed as original equipment at that seating 
position. The geometry of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at 
the pre-load point, of the attachment of the originally installed seat 
belt assembly. All belt systems (including the tether) used to attach 
the test device are tightened to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and 
not more than 67 N on the webbing portion of the belt. For SFAD 1, 
apply a rearward force of 135 N +/- 15 N, in a horizontal plane through 
point ``X'' of SFAD 1. While maintaining the force, tighten the vehicle 
seat belt to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N 
measured at the lap portion of the seat belt and maintain the tension 
during the preload, lock the seat belt retractor, and tighten the 
tether belt strap to remove all slack. A rearward force of 135 N +/- 15 
N is applied to the center of the lower front crossmember of SFAD 2 to 
press the device against the seat back as the fore-aft position of the 
rearward extensions of the SFAD is adjusted to remove any slack or 
tension.
* * * * *
    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 and before September 1, 2005 must meet all 
of the requirements of S9 of this standard, except as provided in S16 
of this standard with regard to S9.4. Vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2005 must meet all the requirements of S9 of this 
standard.
    S9.1  Configuration of the lower anchorages.
    S9.1.1 * * *
    (b) Are straight, horizontal and transverse;
    (c) Are not less than 25 mm, but not more than 50 mm in length (as 
shown in Figure 21);
    (d)-(e) [Reserved]
    (f) Are part of the vehicle, such that they can only be removed by 
use of a tool, such as a screwdriver or wrench; and
* * * * *
    S9.2.1 The anchorage bars are located at the vehicle seating 
position by using the CRF rearward extensions, with the CRF placed 
against or near the vehicle seat back. With the CRF attached to the 
anchorages and resting on the seat cushion, the bottom surface shall 
have attitude angles within the limits in the following table, angles 
measured relative to the vehicle horizontal, longitudinal and 
transverse reference planes.

                             Table to S9.2.1
Pitch........................................................  15[deg] +/
                                                               - 10[deg]
Roll.........................................................  0[deg] +/-
                                                                  5[deg]
Yaw..........................................................  0[deg] +/-
                                                                10[deg]
 
Note: An explanation of the above angles is given in Figure 1.

    S9.2.2 With adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.2.3, each 
lower anchorage bar shall be located so that a vertical transverse 
plane tangent to the front surface of the bar is:
    (a) Not more than 70 mm behind the corresponding point Z of the 
CRF, measured parallel to the bottom surface of the CRF and in a 
vertical longitudinal plane, while the CRF is pressed against the seat 
back by the rearward application of a horizontal force of 100 N at 
point A on the CRF; and
    (b) Not less than 120 mm behind the vehicle seating reference 
point, measured horizontally and in a vertical longitudinal plane.
    S9.2.3 Adjustable seats are adjusted as follows:
    (a) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal 
design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer; and
    (b) Place adjustable seats in the full rearward and full downward 
position.
* * * * *
    S9.4.1 When tested in accordance with S11, the lower anchorages 
shall not allow point X on SFAD 2 to be displaced horizontally more 
than the distances specified below, after preloading the device--
    (a) 175 mm, when a force of 11,000 N is applied in a forward 
direction in a vertical longitudinal plane; and
    (b) 150 mm, for lower anchorages that are in an outboard designated 
seating position, or 150 mm, for lower anchorages that are in a seating 
position other than an outboard designated seating position, when a 
force of 5,000 N is applied in a lateral direction in a vertical 
longitudinal plane that is 75 +/- 5 degrees to either side of a 
vertical longitudinal plane.
* * * * *
    (2) That is either solid or open, with or without words, symbols or 
pictograms, provided that if words, symbols or pictograms are used, 
their meaning is explained to the consumer in writing, such as in the 
vehicle's owners manual; and
    (3) That is located such that its center is on each seat back 
between 50 and 75 mm above or on the seat cushion 100 +/- 25 mm forward 
of the intersection of the vertical transverse and horizontal 
longitudinal planes intersecting at the horizontal centerline of each 
lower anchorage, as illustrated in Figure 22. The center of the circle 
must be in the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the 
center of the bar (+/- 12 mm).
    (4) The circle may be on a tag, provided that the tag is sewn on at 
least half of its border.
    (b) The vehicle shall be configured such that the following is 
visible: Each of the bars installed pursuant to S4, or a permanently 
attached guide device for each bar. The bar or guide device must be 
visible without the compression of the seat cushion or seat back, when 
the bar or device is viewed, in a vertical longitudinal plane passing 
through the center of the bar or guide device, along a line making an 
upward 30 degree angle with a horizontal plane. Seat backs are in the 
nominal design riding position. The bars may be covered by a removable 
cap or cover, provided that the cap or cover is permanently marked with 
words, symbols or pictograms whose meaning is explained to the consumer 
in written form as part of the owner's manual.
* * * * *
    (a) Forward force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating 
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child 
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. A 
rearward force of 135 +/- 15 N is applied to the center of the lower 
front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press the device against the seat back as 
the fore-aft position of the rearward extensions of the SFAD is 
adjusted to remove any slack or tension. Apply a preload force of 500 N 
at point X of the test device. Increase the pull force as linearly as 
practicable to a full force application of 11,000 N in not less than 24 
seconds and not more than 30 seconds, and maintain at an 11,000 N level 
for 1 second.
    (b) Lateral force direction. Place SFAD 2 in the vehicle seating 
position and attach it to the two lower anchorages of the child 
restraint anchorage system. Do not attach the tether anchorage. A 
rearward force of 135 +/- 15 N is applied to the center of the lower 
front crossbar of SFAD 2 to press the device against the seat back as 
the fore-aft position of the rearward extensions of the SFAD is 
adjusted to remove any slack or tension. Apply a preload force of 500 N 
at point X of the test device. Increase the pull force as linearly as 
practicable to a full

[[Page 38228]]

force application of 5,000 N in not less than 24 seconds and not more 
than 30 seconds, and maintain at a 5,000 N level for 1 second.
* * * * *
    S16. Phase-in of strength requirements for vehicles manufactured on 
or after September 1, 2004 and before September 1, 2005. At anytime 
during the production year ending August 31, 2004, each manufacturer 
shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 
provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and 
vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying 
with S6.3.1 or S6.3.4, and with S9.4 or S15.2 and S15.3. The 
manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as meeting the particular 
requirement is irrevocable.
    S16.1 Tether anchorage phase-in of strength requirements. For 
vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and before 
September 1, 2005, the number of vehicles complying with S6.3.1 shall 
be not less than 90 percent of:
    (a) the manufacturer's average annual production of vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 
2004; or
    (b) the manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2003 and 
before September 1, 2004.
    S16.2 Lower anchorages phase-in of strength requirements.
    For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and before 
September 1, 2005, the number of vehicles complying with S9.4 shall be 
not less than 90 percent of:
    (a) The manufacturer's average annual production of vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 
2004; or
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2003 and 
before September 1, 2004.
    S16.3 Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer.
    S16.3.1 For the purpose of calculating average annual production of 
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured 
by each manufacturer under S16.1 and S16.2, a vehicle produced by more 
than one manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as 
follows, subject to S16.3.2.
    (a) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the 
importer.
    (b) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one 
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be 
attributed to the manufacturer that markets the vehicle.
    S16.3.2 A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be 
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an 
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration under 49 CFR Part 596, between the manufacturer 
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise 
be attributed under S16.3.1.
    S16.4 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 S16.4(a)(1) and (2), instead of the 
requirements set forth in S16.1 through S16.2.
    (1) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and before 
September 1, 2005 may meet the requirements of S6.3.4 instead of 
S6.3.1, and may meet the requirements of S15.2 and S15.3 instead of 
S9.4.
    (2) Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2005 must meet 
the requirements of S6.3.4 and S9.4.
    (b) Small volume manufacturers. Vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2004 and before September 1, 2005 that are manufactured by 
a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles worldwide 
annually may meet the requirements of S6.3.4 instead of S6.3.1, and may 
meet the requirements of S15.2 and S15.3 instead of S9.4. Vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2005 must meet the requirements 
of S6.3.4 and S9.4.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 38229]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN03.000


[[Page 38230]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN03.001


[[Page 38231]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN03.002

PART 596--CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS PHASE-IN REPORTING 
REQUIREMENTS

0
3. The authority citation for Part 596 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
4. Part 596 is amended by revising Sec. Sec.  596.5 introductory test, 
596.6(b)(2), and 596.7, to read as follows:


Sec.  596.5  Response to inquiries.

    At anytime during the production years ending August 31, 2000, 
August 31, 2001, August 31, 2002, and August 31, 2005, each 
manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration concerning its compliance with the child 
restraint anchorage system requirements of Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 
571.225) for its passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall--
* * * * *


Sec.  596.6  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Production. (i) Each manufacturer shall report for the 
production year for which the report is filed, except for the 
production year ending August 31, 2005: the number of passenger cars 
and trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) or less, 
and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, that meet 
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225).
    (ii) Each manufacturer shall report for the production year ending 
August 31, 2005: the number of passenger cars and trucks and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) or less, and buses with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, that meet S6.3.1 and S9.4 of 
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR 571.225).
* * * * *


Sec.  596.7  Records.

    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle 
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is 
reported under Sec.  596.6(b)(2)(i) until December 31, 2004. Each 
manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle Identification 
Number for each vehicle for which information is reported under Sec.  
596.6(b)(2)(ii) until December 31, 2007.

    Issued on June 19, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-15953 Filed 6-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P