[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 11, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48818-48825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18199]



[[Page 48818]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18793]
RIN 2127-AJ39; 2127-AH85


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage 
Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration; 
corrections.

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

SUMMARY: In June 2003, NHTSA published a response to petitions for 
reconsideration of earlier final rules amending Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems. 
Subsequently, the agency received several petitions asking us to 
reconsider, correct or clarify some aspects of the June 2003 final 
rule. This document responds to those petitions. In addition, this 
document denies a request made in a petition for reconsideration to 
allow stowable (or ``fold-away'') lower anchors past September 1, 2004.

DATES: The amendments made in this rule are effective September 1, 
2004. If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your 
petition must be received by September 27, 2004.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table Of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Reconsideration of the June 27, 2003 Rule
    a. Length of the LATCH Lower Bars
    b. Marking the Location of Lower LATCH Anchorage Bars
    c. Corrections
IV. Stowable Lower Anchors
V. Effective Date
VI. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices

I. Introduction

    On June 27, 2003, NHTSA published a final rule (68 FR 38208, Docket 
No. 03-15438; corrected 68 FR 54861, September 19, 2003) that provided 
the last of the agency's responses to petitions for reconsideration 
that the agency received regarding a final rule establishing Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child restraint 
anchorage systems'' (FMVSS No. 225, 49 CFR 571.225). Several parties 
petitioned for reconsideration of some of the decisions announced by 
that June 2003 final rule. Today's document responds to those 
petitions. In addition, today's document denies a request in a petition 
for reconsideration from Keiper GmbH & Co. (Keiper) to allow the use of 
stowable (or ``foldaway'') lower anchors past September 1, 2004.

II. Background

March 1999 Final Rule

    On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published a final rule establishing FMVSS 
No. 225 (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 of a 
specified length, 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.)
    The LATCH system must meet specified strength requirements and must 
be either positioned in the vehicle such that the lower anchorage bars 
are visible to consumers, or at least marked such that their presence 
and location are made conspicuous. Such marking is required to be 
accomplished by placing a circle on the vehicle seat back or seat 
cushion above or below the bar.
    A number of parties petitioned for reconsideration of various 
aspects of the March 1999 final rule, including the standard's strength 
requirements for the LATCH system, the test procedures used by NHTSA to 
test for compliance with the requirements, and the configuration and 
marking of the LATCH lower anchorage bars. The agency responded to the 
petitions in documents published on August 31, 1999 (64 FR 47566; 
Docket No. 99-6160), July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46628; Docket No. 7648), and 
June 27, 2003, supra.

III. Reconsideration of the June 27, 2003 Rule

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the June 27, 2003 
final rule from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,\1\ Johnson 
Controls, Mitsubishi, and the Ford Motor Company. The issues raised by 
the petitioners relate to the length of the LATCH system lower bars, to 
the marking of the seat back, and to the need for clarification of or 
minor corrections to various provisions of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Alliance consists of members BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, 
General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. 
The Alliance supplemented its petition for reconsideration with a 
letter dated March 24, 2004 (Docket No. NHTSA-03-15438-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Length of the LATCH Lower Bars

    FMVSS No. 225 specifies the length of the lower anchorage bars of a 
LATCH system. Section 9.1.1(c) states that each bar must be not less 
than 25 millimeters (mm) long and not more than 50 mm in length. The 
minimum and maximum limits were adopted in part to standardize the 
design of the lower bars. The maximum length limit was also adopted to 
reduce the likelihood that the bars may bend in a crash, and to limit 
the ability of a child restraint to move laterally and/or rotate in a 
side impact crash.
    In the original final rule, the maximum permissible length was 40 
mm. That length referred to the straight portion of the bar to which 
the lower anchorage hardware of a child restraint is connected. To 
provide more design and manufacturing flexibility to manufacturers, the 
June 2003 final rule increased the maximum bar length from 40 mm to 50 
mm. In addition, the June 2003 final rule included a Figure 21 that 
depicted the portion of the bar that is measured for compliance with 
the 50 mm limit. The portion shown depicted measuring the inside 
opening of the bar (68 FR at 38213), including the inside radii of the 
lower anchorage bars, and not just the straight portion of the bar as 
had been specified before. NHTSA believed that showing where the bar is 
measured would help to assure that the

[[Page 48819]]

measurement is objective and repeatable.
    The Alliance and Johnson Controls petitioned for reconsideration of 
the change made by the June 2003 final rule. The petitioners stated 
that Figure 21 is incorrect because, they believed, measuring the 
inside portion of the bar would include the inside radii of the lower 
anchorage bars in the measurement of bar length. Because curved 
portions of the bar could be included in what was supposed to be a 
measurement of the ``straight'' portion of the bar (the straight 
portion of the bar to which the child restraint hardware connects), 
petitioners said that the effect of Figure 21 could limit the straight 
portion of the bar to less than 50 mm. The Alliance stated that some 
anchorages that had met S9.1.1(c) with a maximum length of 40 mm may 
now fail the 50 mm limit when measured according to Figure 21.
    In a March 24, 2004 supplement to its petition for reconsideration, 
the Alliance expressed further concern about Figure 21 because, 
petitioner stated, it does not show how to measure the length of 
anchorages that do not have straight and parallel sides. (The bar 
depicted in the figure had straight and parallel sides.) At the same 
time, the petitioner recognized that the agency believed that measuring 
the inside opening of the bar at specified points on the bar improved 
the objectivity of the test. To address the agency's concern and the 
alleged problems with Figure 21, the petitioner suggested that 
S9.1.1(d) be amended to specify: (1) That the bar is measured in a 
vertical plane 13 mm rearward of the vertical plane that is tangent to 
the forward face of the anchor bar; and (2) that the bar must not be 
more than 60 mm in length between the anchor bar supports or other 
structural members that restrict lateral movement of a child restraint 
attachment. The petitioner believed that the 13 mm provides enough 
clearance to enable child restraints to attach to the bar.
    NHTSA's Response: The agency has decided that Figure 21 is useful 
in showing where the LATCH bar is to be measured and should generally 
be retained. Yet, the agency also agrees that revisions to the figure 
and to the corresponding regulatory text (S9.1.1(c)) are needed, as 
discussed by the petitioners. As explained below, this final rule makes 
the amendments to the figure and regulatory text suggested by the 
Alliance, with one difference.
    To provide the design and manufacturing flexibility intended by the 
agency in the June 27, 2003 final rule in increasing the maximum 
allowable bar length to 50 mm, this final rule increases the maximum 
allowable bar length to 60 mm. Increasing the maximum bar length to 60 
mm, measured as shown in Figure 21 (as revised today), will allow for 
the straight portion of the bar to be increased to 50 mm. This final 
rule also clarifies that the bar must not be more than 60 mm in length 
between the anchor bar supports or other structural members of the 
vehicle that restrict lateral movement of the components of a child 
restraint that are designed to attach to the bars. In other words, the 
LATCH anchorage bars are not required to have the ``U'' shape shown in 
Figure 21. (The Figure will also bear wording that the depiction of the 
U shape is for illustration purposes only.)
    Another amendment relates to the Alliance's suggestion that 
S9.1.1(d) be amended to specify that the bar is measured in a vertical 
plane 13 mm rearward of the vertical plane that is tangent to the 
forward face of the anchor bar. The agency agrees that defining with 
more specificity where the bar is measured improves the objectivity of 
the requirement. However, NHTSA believes that the bar should be 
measured with reference to the vertical plane that is tangent to the 
rearward face of the anchor bar (rather than the vertical plane that is 
tangent to the forward face of the bar), taking into account the 6 mm 
thickness of the bar. Thus, the bar would be measured in a vertical 
plane that is 7 mm rearward of the vertical plane that is tangent to 
the rearward face of the anchor bar.
    The agency prefers to reference the rearward face of the bar 
because that dimension directly defines the inside opening of the bar 
that interfaces with the component on the child restraint that attaches 
to the LATCH anchor. There would be no need to take into account the 
0.1 mm tolerance allowed for the 6 mm diameter bar.

b. Marking the Location of Lower LATCH Anchorage Bars

    FMVSS No. 225 specifies marking requirements for lower LATCH 
anchorage bars that can not be viewed from a forward angle of 30 
degrees above a horizontal plane tangent to the seat cushion (S9.5). 
Vehicles in which the bars are not visible from that angle must have a 
permanent mark on the vehicle seat back or seat cushion at each bar's 
location. The permanent mark must be a circle that is not less than 13 
mm (\1/2\ inch) in diameter and that is located a specified distance 
above or below the center of each individual bar, within a specified 
tolerance. The purposes of marking the location of the bars are 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.
    Lateral Position of the Circle. Prior to the June 27, 2003 final 
rule, the standard specified that the center of the circle must be in 
the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of the 
bar. The June 2003 final rule amended the standard to provide a 12 mm lateral tolerance for centering the circle over the 
anchorage bar, to account for production variation and seat cover 
configuration. The agency declined to provide a 25 mm tolerance because 
NHTSA was concerned that with such a tolerance, the centerline of the 
circle might not be over the bar if the bar were only 25 mm long, and 
thus the circle may not adequately denote the location of the 
anchorage.
    The Alliance and Ford Motor Company petitioned for reconsideration 
of the agency's decision not to adopt a lateral tolerance of 25 mm for the placement of the circle. The petitioners strongly 
believe that it is impracticable to meet the 12 mm tolerance for some 
types of vehicles, such as passenger cars that have the LATCH anchors 
mounted directly to the floor pan with the seat back and cushion 
independently mounted to the body structure at the assembly plant. The 
Alliance stated that--

the markings are applied to the seat back trim material before the 
trim cover is assembled onto the seat back, and there is 
considerable variation in the location of the marking after the seat 
trim cover is assembled onto the seat back. Variation in position of 
the seat back in the vehicle introduces further variation in 
position of the markings on a seat relative to the anchors on the 
floor. Reducing this variation would require a costly change in 
design and different final line vehicle assembly methods with no 
commensurate increase in safety.

    The Alliance stated also that it may not be practicable to locate 
some types of markings directly over the center of the anchor bar 
because of seat back design features such as seams, seams with piping, 
vertical slits to allow easier access to LATCH anchor bars, or 
junctions between side bolsters and seat inserts. In addition, the 
petitioner said that a 25 mm tolerance would harmonize with a 
comparable requirement of Transport Canada.
    Johnson Controls, a seat supplier, submitted a May 13, 2004 letter 
to the docket to support the adoption of a 25 mm tolerance. Johnson 
Controls believed that a portion of the circle would always be over the 
anchor area even if a 25 mm tolerance were

[[Page 48820]]

specified. Further, Johnson Controls stated that established design 
tolerances used in seat and vehicle assembly processes currently exceed 
the 12 mm lateral tolerance, and that there is no existing process that 
allows for the seat back to be marked to meet a 12 mm tolerance.
    NHTSA's Response: The agency has decided to grant the request to 
increase the lateral tolerance to 25 mm. Vehicle manufacturers have 
provided convincing information that for many vehicles, it would be 
difficult to align the center of the LATCH lower anchorage bars and a 
13 mm circle with less than a 25 mm tolerance due to manufacturing 
processes and seat back design features. Moreover, the agency believes 
that increasing the tolerance to 25 mm will not significantly affect 
the consumers' ability to find the LATCH anchorages. While anchor bars 
are permitted to be as short as 25 mm in the straight portion of the 
bar (see revised Figure 21), most are considerably longer. Even if a 25 
mm bar were used, with a 25 mm tolerance from the center of the bar, 
the circle will be, at farthest, tangent to a longitudinal vertical 
plane tangent to the side of the anchorage bar. If a person were to 
probe the seat bight in the area directly under the marking circle, his 
or her finger would easily contact the bar. For bars that are greater 
than 25 mm in length, with a 25 mm tolerance a portion of the marking 
circle will always be over some part of the bar. In either situation, 
marking the circle with a 25 mm tolerance will adequately provide a 
visual reminder to consumers that the LATCH system is present and will 
help users locate and use the bars. Adopting the 25 mm tolerance will 
also harmonize FMVSS No. 225 with the comparable Transport Canada 
requirement.
    Vertical Position of the Circle. Prior to the June 27, 2003 final 
rule, the standard specified that the center of the circle must be not 
less than 50 mm and not more than 75 mm above the bar. The June 27, 
2003 final rule denied a request from the Alliance that the vertical 
position of the marking should be located not more than 100 mm from the 
horizontal centerline of the anchorage bar in the vertical longitudinal 
plane. NHTSA did not increase the 75 mm upper limit to 100 mm because, 
the agency believed, 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.
    Ford Motor Company petitioned for reconsideration of this decision, 
stating that the 75 mm upper limit causes problems for vehicles that 
have large vertical slits along the bottom of the seat back. The 
petitioner stated that on these vehicles, to meet the 75 mm upper 
limit, the access slit would have to be shortened.

The access slit cannot be long enough to readily access the anchors 
and provide room for hook-type attachments to be tightened while 
still keeping the markings within the 50 to 75 mm tolerance (and 
within 25 mm of the lateral center of the anchor bar). * 
* * Child restraint manufacturers are reporting damage, particularly 
to leather seats, from hook-type attachments, which are pulled 
sharply upward when the child seat attachments are tightened.

    Ford stated that increasing the permitted vertical range to 50 to 
100 mm would allow longer vertical access slits.
    NHTSA's Response: Ford has submitted new information on the need 
for a longer vertical slit that has convinced NHTSA that the permitted 
vertical range of the circle should be increased to 100 mm from the 
LATCH bar. An increase to 100 mm balances the need for a longer slit 
(to decrease the wear-and-tear on the fabric, leather or other material 
out of which the seat cover is fabricated) with the need for reasonable 
proximity of the circle to the anchorage bar. This final rule amends 
S9.5(a)(3) and Figure 22 to permit the circle to be 50 to 100 mm above 
the bar.
    Permanency. The June 27, 2003 final rule included a discussion in 
the preamble that explained that the agency was not allowing the use of 
tags to meet the marking requirement, i.e., the circle could not be 
placed on a tag that stuck out from the vehicle seat back like a flag. 
NHTSA was concerned that, if only one side of a tag were sewn into a 
seam, it was foreseeable that a consumer would snip it off. The final 
rule included a provision that a tag could be used only if it is sewn 
on at least half of its border (so as to not invite snipping).
    The Alliance petitioned for reconsideration of the requirement that 
a tag had to be sewn on at least half its border. The petitioner said 
that sewing half of the border of a tag forms a loop that can catch on 
the clothing of occupants (particularly pocket rivets), and may be 
susceptible to damage. (Some of the members of the Alliance 
misunderstood NHTSA's requirement that a tag must be sewn on at least 
half its border. By this requirement, the agency meant to ensure that 
fabric tags lay flat on the seat back or cushion, and will not stick 
out from a seam. Some members envisioned folding a fabric tag in half 
and sewing the two matching edges into a seam. The resulting tag 
protrudes from the seam even though half of its border was sewn, which 
was contrary to NHTSA's intent.)
    NHTSA's Response: The agency has reconsidered its position that the 
standard should prohibit tags from protruding from the vehicle seat 
back or seat cushion. The agency originally adopted the provision 
against sewing only one side of a tag out of a concern that consumers 
could find the tag bothersome and may be tempted to snip it off. This 
concern was discussed in a letter interpreting a provision in FMVSS No. 
213, ``Child restraint systems'' (49 CFR 571.213), that requires rear-
facing child restraints to be permanently labeled with a crucial safety 
warning not to place a rear-facing child restraint in the front seat of 
a vehicle equipped with a passenger-side air bag. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/files/13960sew.lab.html. The label 
is required to be fairly large (it averages about 54 square cm) and 
conspicuous, and located on the child restraint where the child's head 
would rest. The agency decided that by virtue of its location and ease 
of detachment by cutting, tearing or pulling off the single row of 
stitching attaching the label, the label invited removal and was not 
likely to stay attached during the course the restraint would be used. 
These considerations are not present for a tag having a 13 mm circle, 
located near the vehicle seat bight. Such a tag is not nearly so likely 
to be removed as a large warning label protruding from the padding of 
the child restraint in the area where a child's head would rest.
    Vehicle manufacturers have indicated that tags can facilitate the 
marking of the LATCH lower anchorages, possibly reducing costs and 
increasing design flexibility. Because of this, and because the need to 
prohibit protruding tags is small in the FMVSS No. 225 situation as 
compared to that of the FMVSS No. 213 air bag warning label, NHTSA is 
amending S9.5(a)(4) of FMVSS No. 225 to specify that the circle may be 
on a tag, and to remove any specification as to how much of the tag's 
border must be sewn.

c. Corrections

    This final rule makes the following corrections to and 
clarifications of the June 27, 2003 final rule.
Effective Date
    In its petition for reconsideration, Mitsubishi stated that it was 
unclear when the amendments made by the June 27, 2003 final rule to S9 
were to take effect. The June 2003 final rule stated that the effective 
date for the document was 30 days from publication (August 26, 2003), 
but Mitsubishi believed that

[[Page 48821]]

NHTSA intended to have the amendments come into force September 1, 
2004. Mitsubishi is correct that the agency intended the mandatory 
compliance date for the amendments to be September 1, 2004. Vehicles 
manufactured on or after that date would have to meet the amended 
requirements.
    NHTSA notes that the June 27, 2003 should also have specified that 
voluntary early compliance would be permitted. Manufacturers were 
allowed to certify their vehicles as meeting FMVSS No. 225, as amended, 
prior to September 1, 2004.
Simultaneous Testing
    The Alliance raised an issue in a September 13, 2000 submission to 
a previous docket on FMVSS No. 225 (Docket No. 00-7648-5) that the 
agency inadvertently did not address. FMVSS No. 225 specifies test 
conditions and procedures for testing tether anchorages. The standard 
originally specified that in the case of a row of designated seating 
positions that has more than one tether anchorage, at the agency's 
option, each tether anchorage could be tested simultaneously (S6.3.3, 
64 FR at 10825). The agency later amended this provision, at the 
request of the Alliance, to specify that adjacent seating positions 
should only be subject to simultaneous testing if two child restraints, 
400 mm wide, can be properly installed side-by-side (65 FR 46628). 
(Based on the width of typical child restraints, a center-to-center 
distance between adjacent seating positions of at least 400 mm is 
needed to install child restraints in adjacent seating positions 
properly.) That is, if there is a row of seats in which three adjacent 
seating positions are equipped with lower anchorages, but it is 
physically impossible to install three child restraints properly in 
these seating positions, there is no need to test all three LATCH 
systems (or tether anchorages) simultaneously. (65 FR at 46637.)
    The agency implemented the amendment applying to the simultaneous 
testing of tether anchorages by amending S6.3.3 and S6.3.4 and adding a 
Figure 20. In S6.3.3, S6.3.4 and Figure 20, reference is made to 
measuring a distance between ``the two lower anchorages'' at the 
seating position. The Alliance noted that the reference does not 
provide for determining whether to test simultaneously tether 
anchorages at seating positions that do not have ``lower anchorages'' 
(child restraints would be attached at such seating positions by use of 
the vehicle's belt system and top tether anchorage). The Alliance 
suggested that NHTSA correct S6.3.3, S6.3.4 and Figure 20 by specifying 
that the midpoint of such seating positions ``lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that passes through the SgRP [seating reference 
point] of the seating position.'' NHTSA agrees and has made the 
correction in this document.
Displacement Limit for Lateral Pull Test
    In its petition for reconsideration, Johnson Controls and the 
Alliance stated that it was unclear whether NHTSA intended the 
displacement limit for lower LATCH anchorages in the lateral pull test 
specified in S9.4.1(b) to be the same for lower anchorages that are in 
outboard and non-outboard designated seating positions. Johnson 
Controls said that regulatory text specifies 150 mm for anchorages in 
both seating positions but that the preamble discussing the change 
implied that the 150 mm requirement applied only to non-outboard 
seating positions.
    The 150 mm requirement applies to anchorages in both the outboard 
and non-outboard seating positions. The agency has amended the text of 
S9.4.1(b) to make this clearer.
Phase-In Dates
    The Alliance noted that some of the dates in section S16 were in 
error. S16 specifies a one-year phase-in schedule for vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2004 and before September 1, 
2005. The introductory paragraph of S16 states that, ``At anytime 
during the production year ending August 31, 2004,'' manufacturers must 
provide information to NHTSA upon request. The Alliance correctly noted 
that the date should be August 31, 2005, to make reference to the one-
year period during which the requirements are phased in. Today's 
document makes this correction.
    The petitioner also referred to S16.1(b), which specifies that the 
number of vehicles that must meet certain requirements must not be less 
than 90 percent of the manufacturer's production in a specified one-
year period. The final rule stated that that period is from September 
1, 2003 to September 1, 2004. The petitioner stated that the period 
should be September 1, 2004 to September 1, 2005, to match the 
production year of interest. The agency agrees and has made the 
correction.
S9.3
    The agency has noted that the electronic Code of Federal 
Regulations shows that S9.3 of FMVSS No. 225 is no longer included in 
the standard. There was no intent by NHTSA that the section be removed. 
Today's document replaces the paragraph in FMVSS No. 225.

IV. Stowable Lower Anchors

    Final rules of August 31, 1999 and July 31, 2000, supra, that 
responded to various issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of 
the rulemaking that established FMVSS No. 225 permitted vehicle 
manufacturers to meet a then-draft standard developed by the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) during an interim 
period. (That interim period originally was set to expire September 1, 
2002 but was extended to September 1, 2004.) NHTSA permitted compliance 
with the draft ISO standard because manufacturers were able to produce 
vehicles in the short-term that could meet the anchorage strength 
levels in the ISO requirements.
    Keiper requested in a petition for reconsideration that NHTSA 
retain one aspect of the draft ISO standard on a permanent basis. The 
draft ISO standard allowed the use of stowable or fold-away lower 
anchorages of a LATCH system. The petitioner believes that stowable/
foldaway anchorages address difficulties in mounting lower LATCH 
anchorages in seating positions that have a limited area in which to 
locate the anchorages and in those positions that have deeply contoured 
seats. The petitioner also believes that the stowable or fold-away 
anchorages could be placed farther to the rear than rigidly-mounted 
LATCH lower anchorages. The petitioner said that that placement would 
increase the potential safety and comfort for adult seat occupants. 
Petitioner stated that it offers a ``standard'' and ``economy'' models 
of a stowable anchorage system.

In the ``park'' position, these components are out of sight in the 
gap between the backrest and the seat cushion. * * * On the Standard 
module * * *, they can be released with a pull tab. Integrated 
springs then bring the brackets into the ``ready'' position. The 
eccentric mounting, combined with the active force of the springs 
prevent the brackets from swinging out of position while the child 
seat is being installed. In the basic Economy version * * *, each 
bracket is manually folded out of the gap between the seat cushion 
and back rest and placed into the ``ready'' position * * *. The 
Economy version anchorages are fixed in the ``ready'' position by a 
bolt element which has to be released before the anchorage can be 
pivoted back in its ``park'' position.

    NHTSA is denying this request to allow stowable anchorages after 
August 31, 2004. Although stowable anchorages are currently used by 
only one vehicle manufacturer (DaimerChrysler) on limited models, the 
agency is concerned

[[Page 48822]]

that if these anchorage systems were used more generally, they might 
impede efforts to achieve maximum compatibility between child restraint 
systems and vehicle LATCH systems. While FMVSS No. 225 has made child 
restraints easier to use, it is still difficult to install some LATCH-
equipped child restraints in some vehicles.\2\ NHTSA is monitoring how 
the LATCH system is being implemented in vehicles and on child 
restraints and how effectively consumers are using the system, to 
identify any areas that need to be addressed to improve compatibility 
between vehicles and child restraints further (Docket NHTSA 2003-
15998). Consumers are just beginning to become familiar with 
standardized LATCH systems. Compatibility is unlikely to be fostered by 
a variation in the usability of LATCH at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ June 11, 2003 joint press event; NHTSA, Consumers Union, and 
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stowable anchorages, which are not standardized in form or function 
by FMVSS No. 225 in their stowed position, are new to the vast majority 
of consumers. Because FMVSS No. 225 does not specify how stowable 
anchorages are stowed, deployed, or re-stowed, stowable systems could 
be designed to operate in disparate ways and to be stowed in the seat 
bight (or elsewhere) at varied locations. The lack of standardization 
could increase consumer uncertainty about using the system, and 
possibly cause misuse or nonuse of the anchorages.
    The agency does not believe that stowable anchorages meet a safety 
need that warrants using limited agency resources to standardize them. 
A search of the NHTSA Hotline database shows only one consumer 
complaint about discomfort from feeling a non-stowable lower LATCH 
anchorages. IIHS has also told NHTSA that it has not heard of any 
complaints about non-stowable anchorages.

V. Effective Date

    The agency is making today's amendments effective September 1, 
2004. This final rule amends requirements that will come into effect on 
that date. For that reason, NHTSA finds for good cause to make this 
final rule effective in less than 180 days. Voluntary early compliance 
with the amendments made in today's final rule is permitted.

VI. 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 relatively minor issues raised by petitions for 
reconsideration of a June 2003 final rule. 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 issuance of FMVSS No. 
225. 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 in the length of the lower bars. This rule corrects and 
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 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 LATCH systems 
pursuant to FMVSS No. 225. 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 today's document, we considered a standard issued by 
the ISO on child restraint anchorage systems. ISO is a worldwide 
voluntary federation of ISO member bodies. In responding to petitioners 
for reconsideration, we considered the ISO standard to guide our 
decisionmaking to the extent consistent with the Safety Act. The ISO 
standard permits stowable anchorages. NHTSA has decided not to permit 
these anchorages because consumers in this country are only now 
becoming familiar with the non-stowable LATCH system. We are concerned 
that the lack of standardization of stowable anchorages could increase 
consumer uncertainty about using the system, and possibly cause misuse 
or nonuse of the anchorages. We also considered the regulations 
developed by Transport Canada in making decisions about the standard's 
marking 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

[[Page 48823]]

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

h. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any collection of information 
requirements requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-13).

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. Go to the Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation 
(http://dms.dot.gov/).
    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 in 49 CFR Part 571

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

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. Revising S6.3.3(a)(1) and S6.3.4.3(a)(1);
0
b. Revising S9.1.1(c);
0
c. Adding S9.3;
0
d. Revising S9.4.1(b), S9.5(a)(3) and S9.5(a)(4);
0
e. Revising the introductory paragraph of S16, and revising S16.1(b); 
and
0
f. Revising Figures 20, 21 and 22.
    The revised and added figures and paragraphs read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S6.3.3 Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing.
    (a) * * *
    (1) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal 
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages 
at the seating position. For those seating positions that do not 
provide lower anchorages, the midpoint of the seating position lies in 
the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the SgRP of the 
seating position.
* * * * *
    S6.3.4.3 Provisions for simultaneous and sequential testing.
    (a) * * *
    (1) The midpoint of the seating position lies in the vertical 
longitudinal plane that is equidistant from vertical longitudinal 
planes through the geometric center of each of the two lower anchorages 
at the seating position. For those seating positions that do not 
provide lower anchorages, the midpoint of the seating position lies in 
the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the SgRP of the 
seating position.
* * * * *
    S9.1.1 * * *
    (c) As shown in Figure 21, are:
    (i) Not less than 25 mm in length, and
    (ii) Are not more than 60 mm in length between the anchor bar 
supports or other structural members of the vehicle that restrict 
lateral movement of the components of a child restraint that are 
designed to attach to the bars, measured in a vertical plane 7 mm 
rearward of the vertical plane that is tangent of the rearward face of 
the anchor bar.
* * * * *
    S9.3 Adequate fit of the lower anchorages. Each vehicle and each 
child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such 
that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower 
anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable 
seats adjusted as described in S9.3(a) and (b).
    (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.
    (c) To facilitate installation of the CRF in a vehicle seat, the 
side, back and top frames of the CRF may be removed for installation in 
the vehicle, as indicated in Figure 1A of this standard. If necessary, 
the height of the CRF may be 560 mm.
    S9.4 Strength of the lower anchorages.
    S9.4.1 * * *
    (b) 150 mm, for lower anchorages 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.
* * * * *
    S9.5 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) That is located such that its center is on each seat back 
between 50 and 100 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 (25 mm).
    (4) The circle may be on a tag.
* * * * *
    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, 2005, 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 * * *
    (b) The manufacturer's production on or after September 1, 2004 and 
before September 1, 2005.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 48824]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU04.551

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU04.552


[[Page 48825]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU04.553


    Issued on August 3, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-18199 Filed 8-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C